Oral
Answers to
Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Kashmir

Hugh Gaffney: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Kashmir.

Paul Williams: What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the political situation in Kashmir.

Paul Blomfield: What recent representations he has made to the Indian Government on that Government’s policies in relation to Kashmir.

Alison Thewliss: What diplomatic steps he is taking to secure peace in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

Dominic Raab: May I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) for the exceptional job he did as Foreign Secretary, and for the professionalism and integrity with which he conducted himself?
We are concerned about the situation in Kashmir. I spoke to Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August. We want to see a reduction in tensions in Kashmir, respect for internationally recognised human rights and steps taken on all sides to rebuild confidence.

Hugh Gaffney: Doctors have warned that the political situation in Kashmir is leading to a shortage of medicines and that hospitals are being left unable to provide treatment for patients. This is because Kashmir receives over 90% of its medical supplies from India. If this situation is not resolved, Kashmir faces the real risk of a major public health crisis. What steps will the Government take to sort it out?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk not just about the theoretical nature of the dispute, but about what it means for communities in Kashmir. It is important that internationally recognised human rights are fully respected, and the way through the tensions is with a constructive political dialogue. The dispute between India and Pakistan in relation to Kashmir is fundamentally for them to resolve, as recognised in UN Security Council resolutions and the Simla agreement.

Paul Williams: The Kashmiri community in Stockton South are understandably concerned about the safety and human rights of the people of Kashmir. Does the Secretary of State believe that there is a role for the United Nations or other independent parties to monitor and report on the alleged human rights abuses to ensure that the Kashmiri people are protected?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in Kashmir in the past, and that this is something  that the General Assembly has looked at. Fundamentally, though, the UN also recognises that the dispute over Kashmir between Pakistan and India is for them to resolve. The hon. Gentleman makes the point—as others will and have—that there are internationally recognised human rights at stake. They are duties owed to the international community at large, and we will certainly be scrutinising the situation carefully to see that those rights are respected.

Paul Blomfield: In Sheffield on Saturday, there was a big protest of people who felt that the Foreign Secretary’s response to the crisis has not been good enough. Will he therefore commit to working through the United Nations and the Commonwealth to strengthen international pressure on India to restore Kashmir’s special status, and to working with both India and Pakistan to secure a long-term solution based on the 1948 UN resolution, so that there can be a plebiscite for the people of Kashmir to determine their own future?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman expresses his concerns powerfully and I understand how keenly they are felt. I have already referred to the UN Security Council resolutions and to the Simla agreement. It is not correct to say that we have not been seized of this issue. The Prime Minister spoke to the Indian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi, on 20 August and the Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, on 7 August. I raised concerns about the situation with Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August. We will obviously be monitoring the situation carefully and talking to international partners in relation to it.

Alison Thewliss: The large Kashmiri community in Glasgow Central are deeply concerned about their friends and relatives in Kashmir, particularly given the media blackout and the curfew that has been imposed. What has the Secretary of State done to raise both those issues, and what does he intend to do to ensure that the Kashmiri people have the right to self-determination?

Dominic Raab: On the issues of detentions, potential mistreatment and communications blackouts that the hon. Lady has raised, I have raised those issues with the Indian Foreign Minister. The Indian Government have made it clear that the measures are only temporary, as strictly required, and we of course want to hold them to that undertaking.

Steven Baker: Events in Kashmir are of the most profound and immediate importance to thousands of my constituents, because British Kashmiris often have family and friends on not one but both sides of the line of control, and they are in frequent FaceTime, email and Skype contact, just like anybody else, even to the second and third generations of migrant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in such circumstances they must have active representation not just from their MPs but from the Government? Will he therefore join me in saying that the time has come to reassure them on the human rights of their families and friends and to ask for independent observers in Kashmir?

Dominic Raab: I know the scale of the community that my hon. Friend has in Wycombe—I believe it is over 10,000. I understand how keenly this is felt among  Kashmiris in Wycombe but also right across the country. The issue of human rights is not just a bilateral, or domestic issue for India or Pakistan—it is an international issue. He is absolutely right to say that we should, with all our partners, expect internationally recognised standards of human rights to be complied with and respected.

Shailesh Vara: Following the action by the Indian Government in Kashmir, on 15 August, Indian independence day, a group of British Indians gathered outside the Indian high commission in London, but they were attacked by members of another community. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the violence and abuse targeted towards the British Indian community on that occasion are completely unacceptable, as they would be against any community on the streets of the UK?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any violence is deplorable. It should not be conducted in this country, or anywhere else for that matter, against any individual communities. We now need to try to reduce these tensions but also, on a positive side, to build confidence-building measures to allow proper dialogue between the communities in Kashmir but also between India and Pakistan.

Anne Main: I have met my Pakistani and Indian communities, who are very concerned about the Kashmir situation. The revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution without involving the Kashmiri people was particularly heinous. If Amnesty International is to be believed, and I think it is, we should have learned from the Rohingya crisis to know that this is another crisis emerging now. We must take the firmest steps to condemn it and do what we can.

Dominic Raab: We are aware of the implications of the revocation of article 370, which has caused interest and concern not just within India and Pakistan but among communities throughout the UK and internationally. It is a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan but also an international issue, given the human rights at stake.

Bob Blackman: It has been a long-standing policy of the Government that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is a bilateral issue. It has also been this House that stands up for human rights and the protection of minorities. Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of article 370, which discriminates against women and minority religions, is to be welcomed?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are different sides to this. But the reality is that there have been widespread reports and concerns about detentions, mistreatments and the communications blackout. There was a UN Security Council discussion on Kashmir on 16 August. As well as wanting to respect the constitutional arrangements within India and in relation to Kashmir, there are implications internationally, particularly as they touch on internationally respected and recognised human rights.

Imran Hussain: I refer Members to my registered interest.
For over four years, I have stood in this place and warned Members of the ongoing persecution, oppression and injustice that the sons and daughters of Kashmir face daily. That situation has now escalated as a result of the revocation of articles 370 and 35A, and the humanitarian situation as a result of the blockade. The reality is that we see up to 10,000 people arrested without due process, and food and medicine shortages. This is a humanitarian crisis. The United Nations Security Council meeting and not even agreeing a condemnation is not something that this House should welcome. What is the Minister doing to end the draconian blockade, at the very least?

Dominic Raab: I think it would be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that, as much as I sympathise with his concerns and understand the heartfelt way in which he makes his points, we cannot alone end that blockade. There has been a discussion about it within the UN Security Council. All and any allegations of human rights violations are deeply concerning, and they must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Textbook brevity from Dame Cheryl Gillan.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I have many constituents who are highly concerned about this. The revocation of article 35A affects property ownership and rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and many of my constituents are very frightened that this could lead to a dramatic transformation from majority Muslim to majority Hindu. The new Prime Minister is famed for being robust. Can he now be robust in defending the rights of these people and their families?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend raises the issue that others have raised, but in a particularly poignant way. The reality is that we have raised the issues around human rights. We have been clear both in our direct dealings with the Indian Government and at the international level that any reports or allegations concerning human rights must be dealt with transparently, thoroughly and rigorously, and human rights standards must be respected.

Liz McInnes: Alongside the revocation of article 370, the Indian authorities have detained more than 4,000 Kashmiris without charge in the last month—not just political activists, but ordinary civilians. There are widespread allegations of torture, and many families do not know where their loved ones are being held. This is no way for the largest democracy in the world to behave, let alone a member of the Commonwealth. Can the Secretary of State tell us what protests he has made to India about those detentions?

Dominic Raab: As I explained to the House—I am happy to repeat it—the concerns and issues that the hon. Lady has raised are very serious, and I raised them directly with Foreign Minister Jaishankar on 7 August.

Emily Thornberry: And detentions?

Dominic Raab: To answer the shadow Foreign Secretary’s question, yes, specifically the issue of detentions, as well as the blackouts. We have made clear our concern and the fact that we need to see—particularly in a great democracy, as the hon. Lady says—internationally recognised human rights respected.

Amazon Forest Fires

Chris Law: What recent discussions he has had with his Brazilian counterpart on the forest fires in the Amazon rainforest.

Daniel Zeichner: What diplomatic steps his Department is taking to help tackle the fires in the Amazon rainforest.

Hannah Bardell: What recent discussions he has had with his Brazilian counterpart on the forest fires in the Amazon rainforest.

Christopher Pincher: On 27 August, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Mr Araújo. I will also be seeing the Brazilian ambassador, Mr Arruda, tomorrow, to reaffirm our commitment to working in partnership with Brazil on a range of issues, including the environment. In response to the very serious fires, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 £10 million for protection and restoration of the rain forest. That is in addition to the £120 million of funding we provide through our other programmes.

Chris Law: While we welcome the £10 million that the UK Government have committed to help to restore the Amazonian rain forest, it is paltry compared with the amount spent on advertising for the Brexit debacle. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me whether the money is spent by local partners in a way that ensures that indigenous people will take charge of the process to reforest their homes and protect our planet? What further funding is he willing to pledge today?

Christopher Pincher: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s passion for the issue. I can confirm that we spend £120 million through our international climate finance programme. That goes to help to tackle deforestation and to help sustainable farming, and it complements the trading activities that we have with Brazil, which ensure that the Brazilian economy grows and prospers, including for those farmers, who are part and parcel of the problem, burning some of the rain forest.

Daniel Zeichner: Over 120,000 people have already petitioned this Parliament, urging trade sanctions to be used against Brazil to put pressure on it. Given that a Minister was in Brazil recently, what pressure was put on by this Government?

Christopher Pincher: The Minister of State, Department for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), was there as part of our international trade obligations, to ensure that we build trade with our strategic partners, such as Brazil. I will be seeing the Brazilian ambassador tomorrow and making clear that we want to help Brazil with its difficulties in these terrible fires, but also that we want  to trade with it, because that is a way of building its economy and ensuring that the sorts of fires that are currently raging are put out and stay out.

Hannah Bardell: Last week, both the Taoiseach and French President said that they will attempt to block the Mercosur trade agreement if Brazil does not honour its environmental commitments. Does the Minister agree that the burning of the Amazon is a human and environmental tragedy that requires a global solution and this is no time for fragile male egos or social media spats? What steps has he taken to ensure that situations such as these receive an urgent and immediate multilateral response now and in the future?

Christopher Pincher: I hope that the hon. Lady will not think that my response is in any way macho. My concern is to make sure that the trade with our two countries prospers and that the Mercosur arrangement succeeds. It will result in the removal of something like 91% of present tariffs. That can only be to the benefit of Brazilian farmers and to the benefit of the Brazilian economy. If we help to ensure that these sensible trade arrangements are made, those fires can be put out and they will stay out.

Vicky Ford: It has been suggested that changes to trade flows between the US and China may be fuelling some of the Amazon forest fires. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all leading nations should be working together to stop that devastation? What conversations are taking place with other leading countries?

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met other Foreign Ministers at Gymnich earlier in the week. He has made clear the concern that we have about those fires. He has also made absolutely clear the importance that we believe trade has to building economies in South America and in the far east, which encourages a better response to such tragedies.

James Gray: Deforestation in the Amazon is indeed a catastrophe of global and generational proportions. We must of course do the right things about it and I very much welcome the pressure that the Minister has described, but is he not also aware of the fact that the deforestation of the Amazon has decreased quite considerably over the last 20 years, and that while it was very, very bad, it is very much less bad than it was; and equally that the level of decrease, therefore, in the size of the forest has been reduced? Does the Minister therefore agree that this is a domestic matter for the Brazilian Government, and that we must persuade them to do the right thing, rather than confronting or berating them?

Christopher Pincher: I certainly think it is better to talk than to engage in megaphone hectoring. Deforestation has increased over the last few years. It has in fact been increasing in Brazil since 2015—some time before the present Government took office. I think it is right that we engage with them—that we try to persuade them to use sensible methods to reduce and stop this problem. It is an international concern, and that is why we have raised it, and will continue to raise it, with the Brazilian authorities.

Pauline Latham: I have spent some of the summer in the Ecuadorian rain forest —part of the same Amazon rain forest that we are talking about. What other countries have made representations to Brazil about the damage that it is doing to the world, not just to Brazil?

Christopher Pincher: The fires that are currently raging do not just affect Brazil; they also affect, for example, Bolivia. Bolivia is concerned about this, as is Venezuela, Peru and Colombia. So I think an international response is helpful. Certainly, those neighbouring countries that can help Brazil with its difficulties should be encouraged to do so.

Helen Goodman: The fires have affected 650 million acres of Amazon rain forest. In his answer just now, the Minister revealed that he did not understand that the problem with the Mercosur trade deal is that cutting beef tariffs incentivises destruction of the rain forest. What proposals will the Government be putting forward at the Chile conference on climate change in November?

Christopher Pincher: As the hon. Lady should know, high agricultural tariffs hurt the poorest. That will only encourage them to do the easy thing, which is to burn land, rather than to farm it sustainably and protect the rain forest. Mercosur is a sensible free trade agreement which should be encouraged, and I trust that in the fullness of time we also will undertake a free trade deal with Brazil—more details of that, I am sure, are to come.

Hong Kong

Virendra Sharma: What recent representations he has made to the Hong Kong Government on the political situation in Hong Kong.

Stephen Hammond: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Hong Kong.

Gillian Keegan: What representations he has made to his Chinese counterpart on (a) tackling violence and (b) encouraging constructive political dialogue in Hong Kong.

Philip Dunne: What representations he has made to his Chinese counterpart on (a) tackling violence and (b) encouraging constructive political dialogue in Hong Kong.

Dominic Raab: We are seriously concerned, and increasingly concerned, about the situation in Hong Kong. Of course we condemn any violence, but we absolutely support the right to peaceful and lawful protests on Hong Kong. The route to resolution through the current situation is via meaningful political dialogue, taken forward under the high degree of autonomy that Hong Kong has under the model of one country and two systems.

Virendra Sharma: I welcome the new Foreign Secretary to his position and congratulate him on taking up the role at a time of such calm. I asked his predecessor in June  whether he would extend an invitation to any Hong Kong citizens at risk of persecution. Will the Secretary of State do his moral duty under the 1984 joint declaration?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman and respect the fact that he has a longstanding interest in this issue. Under the one country, two systems model, and its manifestation through the joint declaration signed by the UK and China, which has treaty status, we gave a range of residents in Hong Kong British National (Overseas) status. The importance of that is that we do not want to unpick, at least at this time, one part of the one country, two systems model. If we do that, we risk its not being respected on the Chinese side.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. I was pleased to hear his comments about the UK Government’s steadfast support for the joint declaration and the one country, two systems principle. Will he make sure that we continue to reiterate that very strongly, because that is a mechanism for driving peace in the solution?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right. I raised those issues with the Chinese Foreign Minister, State Councillor Wang Yi, on 31 July. I also spoke to the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, on 9 August. We support the one country, two systems model. It is important, as reflected in the joint declaration and the treaty-binding obligations that have been made, including to the people of Hong Kong—and including to respect the right of lawful and peaceful protest—that that is adhered to on all sides.

Gillian Keegan: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his position. The Hong Kong police recently made further arrests, including of a 12-year-old girl. Violence is escalating, with reports that police are now using live rounds in conjunction with tear gas and water cannons. What representations has he made to the Chinese Government to ensure that violence is met with a proportional police response, and that minors caught up in the protest movement are adequately safeguarded?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right. I have raised those issues with both the Chinese Foreign Minister and the Chief Executive. In relation to the conduct of the police, let us recognise some of the violence on the ground that they have to deal with, but in relation to disproportionate actions and overreactions it is very clear: the Independent Police Complaints Council is carrying out an inquiry. The point that I have made is that it has to be credible, and has to command the trust of the people of Hong Kong. That is what international observers will look to see.

Philip Dunne: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on the Sino-British joint declaration and how he is using it to engage with his counterparts in China. Can he give the House any information on whether international forums can be used to support the case that we are making that China should uphold its obligations to the people of Hong Kong, with the one country, two systems approach?

Dominic Raab: I share my right hon. Friend’s concern. The route through this is to de-escalate the tensions and to respect the one country, two systems model. At the  international level, more and more interlocutors are expressing their concern about this matter. It is not just an issue for the people of Hong Kong, or for us, given our historical relationship with China and Hong Kong; it is now an issue of widespread international concern.

Catherine West: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on whether in his conversation with Ms Lam on 9 August he specifically raised the question of moving towards universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council members?

Dominic Raab: I talked to Ms Lam about our short-term concerns about violence and protecting internationally recognised human rights standards, which are of course, as the hon. Lady knows, reflected in the joint declaration. We also had an exchange of views about the fact that there are such widespread protests in Hong Kong that they cannot be put down to a small number who are engaged in violence. There needs to be meaningful political dialogue that touches on people’s deeper concerns about the autonomy of Hong Kong being respected.

Chuka Umunna: The demonstrators have acted largely peacefully, but everyone in the House will have seen the footage of the police acting in an unjustified and extremely violent manner. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that the UK is not exporting crowd control equipment—water cannons, tear gas and so on—until that independent inquiry has been carried out and adequate safeguards have been put in place, and will he encourage our international partners to do the same?

Dominic Raab: This is something we are now discussing more and more with our international partners in all parts of the world. It is not just a European issue; transatlantically there are concerns, too. We have raised the issue, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, of a disproportionate response. We also recognise that there has been violence. The answer and the solution is to reduce tensions and to respect the lawful and peaceful right of protest of the people of Hong Kong, but also to have moves and stepping stones towards the dialogue that will actually resolve the issue.

Bob Seely: I declare that this weekend I went to Hong Kong as a guest of a group of democracy activists to witness the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the fundamental problem is that there are people fighting for their rights under the two systems, one country model, when the authoritarian state China wishes to replace that model with the one system, one country model?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in this area and I respect the fact that he has huge expertise. It is not clear, in truth, what the position in Beijing is. Actually, if we look at all its public statements, we see that it sticks and adheres to the position of one country, two systems. That provides the model that can resolve this situation, but we need to have respect for the lawful right of protest. We need to have stepping stones to build confidence towards a track of political dialogue. That is the route through the current situation and to avoid it escalating any further.

Zimbabwe

Nicholas Soames: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe.

Andrew Stephenson: We are gravely concerned at the heavy-handed response to protests in Harare on 16 August, and the recent arrest and abductions of Opposition figures. President Mnangagwa must hold to account those responsible for human rights violations. We have made our position clear to the Zimbabwe Government that UK support depends on fundamental political and economic reform. Zimbabwe must now translate its commitment into actions.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that President Mnangagwa and his Administration have been a grave disappointment to this country and indeed to their own countrymen? Does he nevertheless also agree that the aid we give to Zimbabwe, particularly the DFID aid that goes into education, is absolutely vital and plays an extraordinarily good role in Zimbabwean education? Will he assure me that at the same time as keeping up the pressure on human rights and making absolutely clear our horror at the behaviour of President Mnangagwa and his gang of thugs, we will continue to support the education system in Zimbabwe?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The UK provided £94 million of aid to Zimbabwe in 2018-19. None of that money is channelled through the Zimbabwe Government. I reiterate the point that the UK’s ongoing support through our DFID work depends on fundamental political and economic reform in Zimbabwe.

Kate Hoey: Does the Minister agree that any semblance of the rule of law has now broken down in Zimbabwe? We saw that just last week when a peaceful protest was banned at the very last minute by Mnangagwa. What more are Her Majesty’s Government doing to get the Southern African Development Community and the African Union on board to make their views known about the appalling way that Mnangagwa is treating the people of Zimbabwe?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know she has considerable expertise as the chairman of the all-party group on Zimbabwe. We are very concerned about the current human rights issues in that country. The violations, such as those seen in January and August 2019, have no place in a democratic society. We will continue to work with all international partners to ensure that those responsible are held to account.

Leaving the EU: Gibraltar

Bob Neill: What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Gibraltar on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Christopher Pincher: I have spoken to the Chief Minister, Mr Picardo, by phone on a number of occasions in the past month  and I will speak to him again later this afternoon. We have regular ministerial contact, including through the Joint Ministerial Council with Gibraltar, which has met nine times since its formation three years ago. Ministers and officials across the Government are working closely with the Government of Gibraltar in preparation for Brexit. Gibraltar is and will remain a vital part of our family, whatever the shape of our exit from the EU on 31 October.

Bob Neill: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and his early engagement with Her Majesty’s Government over Gibraltar. Will he bear in mind and make it quite clear that we fully support Gibraltar politically and in practical terms as we leave the European Union? In particular, will he deal with the practical measures relating to the vast number of foodstuffs and the workforce that currently come across the border, which must be resolved before we leave?

Christopher Pincher: No one is more doughty in his championship of Gibraltar than my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his kind words. Let me assure him—as the Prime Minister has assured the Chief Minister—that the United Kingdom will protect Gibraltar’s interests as we leave the EU. From 1967 to 2002, at all points in between and since, we have said that Gibraltar is going to remain a vital part of our family. The Government of Gibraltar are responsible for their own contingency planning, but, as I have said, the UK Government regularly speak to and meet Ministers to ensure that their robust plans are in place.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware that whether it is Gibraltar, Hong Kong or Zimbabwe, people are struggling for the rights that they thought they had and that they find common cause with people in the United Kingdom who are struggling to get the political rights that they thought they had in this country? Is it not about time that we showed as an example that we believe in parliamentary and political democracy in this House?

Christopher Pincher: That was quite a wide-ranging question. Let me put it to the hon. Gentleman in this way: this Government are standing up for the rights of people—the 17.5 million people of our country who voted to leave the European Union—and respecting those that did not. We will make sure that we leave—no ifs, no buts—on 31 October.

Philip Hollobone: What assurances has the Minister sought from the Spanish Government that they will respect Gibraltar’s territorial waters both before we leave and after?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We reject and object robustly to all incursions into Gibraltarian waters. I think that since the start of this year, there have been 499 such incursions and we have made 499 objections. He can be confirmed in his belief that we will support the people of Gibraltar.

Khalid Mahmood: The Minister, I believe, supports a no-deal Brexit. How will the Minister assure the people of Gibraltar that  there will be no disruption of the supply of goods, including food and medicine? News about delays of four hours at the border, resulting in huge economic loss, has leaked in the Yellowhammer document. If the Minister believes that the Yellowhammer document is outdated, what is the updated solution?

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I do not support no deal; I want a deal with the European Union that works for Britain and for Gibraltar, but I am prepared to leave with no deal if we cannot get the deal that is good for us by 31 October. We engage regularly with the Spanish Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Borrell very recently about this matter. As I said, I engage regularly with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. He assures me that Gibraltar is ready. We will make sure that Gibraltar is ready and that we continue the dialogue with the Spanish Government to ensure that there is a free flow of traffic, people and goods across the border after we leave.

Leaving the EU: Diplomacy

Huw Merriman: What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure that the UK is prepared to leave the EU on 31 October 2019.

Anna McMorrin: What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on continued diplomatic co-operation after the UK leaves the EU.

Patrick Grady: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal on international perceptions of the UK.

Dominic Raab: Last week, I attended the Gymnich meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. I met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Cyprus and Finland. We discussed Brexit but also the wide range of international foreign policy issues on which we will continue to co-operate beyond 31 October, from Hong Kong to Iran.

Huw Merriman: I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place. Will he confirm whether the 90-strong negotiation unit has been disbanded? If that is the case, with regard to our foreign resources and diplomats what more is being done across the EU27 member states for us to get a deal to leave the European Union?

Dominic Raab: We have actually strengthened and increased the resources in Brussels and across capitals to make sure we are going to the EU with a clear and reasonable ask, backed up by the commitment and resolve to leave at the end of October, and with the staff and personnel to navigate the nuances and explain our message very clearly to our EU friends.

Anna McMorrin: Does the Secretary of State agree that trust is critical to international diplomacy? If so, does he agree that by threatening a catastrophic no deal  and non-payment of the EU divorce bill, instead of a global player on the world stage, he paints us as a dishonest and disreputable nation—much like his Prime Minister?

Dominic Raab: Let us agree on trust and the importance of being very clear with our international partners on both our reasonable ask and our commitment to leave the EU at the end of October. Trust with the voters of this country is also important. Both Labour and the Conservatives said they would respect the referendum, and on our side we are serious about fulfilling that promise.

Patrick Grady: Nobody voted to leave with no deal, and the very threat of no deal is leading the pound to tank to historic lows, which is nothing to be proud of. Is it not the case that if we crash out without a deal, as the Government seem to want, it will diminish the United Kingdom economically, culturally and diplomatically?

Dominic Raab: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views. I think he would say the same whatever the Government’s position. I would point him, for example, to the views set out on the BBC, on the “Today” programme, by Mervyn King, a former Governor of the Bank of England. He is not known to be in hock to the Tories or Brexit, but he said very clearly that we should get on with it, that the short-term risks were manageable and that there were also opportunities. That is the approach we take.

Stephen Gethins: I will welcome the Foreign Secretary to his place—for now, of course. Has he discovered that, as well as being particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing, we are also reliant on good relations with our other European partners? What impact will no deal have on our relations, and will he reassure our partners that this Government still respects the rule of law?

Dominic Raab: Yes, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on all counts. As well as making the reasonable offer that replaces the backstop, which would allow us to get a deal that is acceptable to this country, we have made the point to our EU partners that we are willing to co-operate on all the no-deal planning and preparation to reduce the risk on all sides. Of course, however, that will require the EU to engage to the same level.

Stephen Gethins: I am glad the Foreign Secretary says he will respect the rule of law and any legislation passed in this place, but there is no mandate for a no-deal Brexit. He himself was among those who told us these deals would be really easy to sort out, and a no-deal Brexit, which he never mentioned, as Channel 4 found out, was never on the cards. So it is clear, is he willing to do this damage to our relationships with our closest partners? The Prime Minister, the Brexiteers and the Foreign Secretary have no idea what they are doing.

Dominic Raab: It is the usual froth and frenzy from the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that no deal was debated on both sides, including by me, during the referendum—and it has been sourced—and that it was an in/out referendum. We remain committed to a deal with the EU, but the one thing that would undermine  our prospects of getting a deal would be passing the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It would undermine our chances at this critical moment of the negotiations.

Emily Thornberry: I welcome the new Foreign Secretary to his position, and indeed his seemingly entirely new team—it is certainly position churn—and pay tribute to his predecessor, who served for 12 months with a concern and diligence that had been so sorely lacking for the previous two years. I hope the new Foreign Secretary will follow the right example.
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the concern of people across the country with health conditions such as schizophrenia and epilepsy for whom, as the Yellowhammer leaks reveal, it will not be possible to stockpile medicines. They will be left exposed and at grave risk because of the shortages that will follow a no-deal Brexit. Can I ask him a simple question? Have the Government asked for legal advice on how coroners would be expected to record the deaths of anyone who loses their life after 31 October as a result of the entirely preventable medicine shortages?

Dominic Raab: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her generous welcome to the Dispatch Box. On no deal and medicines, the UK has a long-standing relationship with pharmaceutical companies, through the NHS, involving hundreds of vaccines and medicines, whereby we do stockpile, without any context of Brexit, but in the ordinary course of events. Both the Health Secretary and the head of the NHS have made it clear that the plans and arrangements are in place to make sure that people can receive their medication supplies in all circumstances. I am sure she will not want to engage in irresponsible scaremongering. It is very important that this be a fact-driven risk analysis.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but the truth is this: the whole point of the Yellowhammer leaks is that some essential medicines—the ones about which I am asking—cannot be stockpiled, which is why there is genuine concern for these individuals.
As a lawyer, the Secretary of State knows his case law as well I do. He will know that if dependent individuals are denied their medicine and die as a result, their cases may meet all the tests in the watershed cases of Jamieson, Khan and Staffordshire and justify a coroner’s finding that they died as a result of neglect. I will submit a freedom of information request today to obtain the advice that the Government have been given to that effect.
Is it not a shameful disgrace that, in 21st-century Britain, we are having to talk about people who are denied their medicine, and about people having access to “adequate’” supplies of food—the Foreign Secretary’s own words—so that this shameless, shameful Government can play games of brinkmanship with Brussels and generate the pretext for a general election? This is no way in which to run a country.

Dominic Raab: Let me gently say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that what is shameful is to take a potentially vulnerable group in our society and scaremonger in such an appalling way. I think that she should listen  to what the Health Secretary and Sir Simon Stevens have said, and take into account the reassurances that medical supplies will be protected in any scenario.

John Bercow: I will allow the next question—on the grounds that extreme brevity is required.

Defence and Security Equipment International Exhibition

Ann Clwyd: Which (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department plan to attend the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition in London in September 2019.

Andrew Murrison: No Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers are currently scheduled to attend the exhibition. However, FCO officials will attend. The Export Control Joint Unit will be on hand advise companies on the United Kingdom’s export licensing procedures, which, as the right hon. Lady will know, are among the most rigorous in the world.

Ann Clwyd: I wish that that were true, but it is not.
I note that Saudi Arabia has been invited to the arms fair once again. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are now reviewing all current arms licences to Saudi Arabia following the recent judgment by the Court of Appeal, which instructed them to determine the likelihood of the use of that equipment in serious violation of international humanitarian law, given past violations?

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. The UK Government have sought leave to appeal, and have been granted it. We disagree—with respect—with the court in its determination, and note the lower court’s determination that the process was “rigorous”, “robust” and “multi-layered”. The right hon. Lady will, I believe, understand that our processes in this country are among the most robust in the world. I am proud of them, and she should be too, because of the Export Control Act 2002 and the statement made on 26 October 2000, which underpinned the licensing process that we have—under, of course, a previous Government.

Topical Questions

Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Since my appointment as Foreign Secretary, I have visited six countries and met 46 Foreign Ministers. In Helsinki last week, we discussed with our EU partners the middle east, cyber-threats and the challenges relating to Iran. In Thailand, Canada, the United States and Mexico, I have set out our vision for a global Britain as we leave the EU: strong, independent, and a force for good in the world.

Stephen Hepburn: What actions are the Government taking, both unilaterally and in partnership, to stop the Brazilian Government wiping out their indigenous peoples, as well as poisoning the world’s environment?

Dominic Raab: We recognise the concerns about the rain forest. I have spoken to the Brazilian Foreign Minister, and the vice-president will be here soon. We will look into supporting Brazil by taking measures to ensure that the rain forests, which rightly attract international interest, are protected in a way that works for the world—[Interruption]—but also—I say this in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary—does not undermine the economy and the poorest people in Brazil.

Stephen Crabb: What conditions were given by Iran ahead of the release of the tanker Adrian Darya from Gibraltar, and how will the United Kingdom respond if and when it is shown Iran has breached those conditions?

Dominic Raab: We were given clear assurances that the oil and the tanker would not, in breach of sanctions, reach Syria and we expect those undertakings to be complied with. We want Iran to come in from the cold; the only way it can do that is by respecting the international rule of law, whether on freedom of navigation, the nuclear deal or indeed the treatment of our dual nationals.

Fabian Hamilton: Can the Minister of State tell me what clause in UN resolution 2216 provides for Saudi Arabia to bomb captive inmates in a Houthi-run prison in Yemen or for the United Arab Emirates to kill forces loyal to the President that their own coalition is supposed to be there to reinstall? If the answer is that there is none, is it not time for him to bring forward a new UN resolution to replace 2216, demanding an immediate ceasefire by all parties across the whole of the country of Yemen?

Andrew Murrison: This country will always stand up for the rule of law in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia and throughout the middle east. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman understands that this country is the champion of international humanitarian law, especially in relation to Yemen, where he knows full well we are the pen holder. In my recent visit to the middle east, including to discuss Yemen, that came across loud and clear; I made it clear to my interlocutors that we will continue to hold them to account for activities in Yemen.

Kevin Hollinrake: Corruption that impoverishes nations is facilitated by financial devices hiding ownership that are created in the UK and other western nations. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to build an international consensus to end the inappropriate use of these devices?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and will know that the 2016 London anti-corruption summit agreed new commitments on ownership transparency. He will also be aware of the leadership we have shown on things like beneficial ownership, unexplained wealth orders, the seizure of criminals’ money from bank accounts and new powers to tackle onshore and offshore tax evasion. The UK is absolutely at the forefront of tackling these things and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that.

Debbie Abrahams: The unilateral revocation of articles 370 and 35A and the associated actions by the Indian Government breach the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Given the imminent UN General Assembly, what specific actions will the Government take to ensure that all Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 47 and the Simla agreement, are upheld?

Dominic Raab: I totally share the hon. Lady’s concerns. We will be looking to ensure internationally respected human rights are respected; they have been raised in this Chamber already in relation to detention and mistreatment but also to communication blackouts. We will also be looking to see generally on all sides a de-escalation of tensions and positive measures to build up confidence; that is the only way this issue will be resolved and calmed down.

Huw Merriman: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to come back on the answer he give me previously? Was he saying—I ask this as someone who wants us to get a good deal to take us out of the EU—that we now have a bigger negotiation team than previously and are they spending more time than previously?

Dominic Raab: To be very specific on the understandable question my hon. Friend asks, we have added over 100 diplomats as well as 140 locally engaged staff across capitals as well as in Brussels, and I hope that shows the seriousness with which we are approaching negotiations to get a deal.

Carol Monaghan: The UK Government have pledged £10 million to tackle the Amazon forest fires. That is an embarrassing 14p per person in the UK to ensure they have oxygen to breathe. The Prime Minister has, we know, extremely deep pockets, so what representations has the Secretary of State made to the Prime Minister to ensure we make a realistic contribution to this global issue?

Christopher Pincher: We are committing £120 million to international climate finance, and on top of that we are committing £10 million extra. This all helps to avoid and stop deforestation; it helps the sustainable agriculture of Brazil.

Mark Menzies: With the flow of migrants from Venezuela now at more than 5 million and with their misery ever-increasing, what steps are the Government taking to support our friends in the region, particularly Colombia and Peru?

Dominic Raab: The failures of the Maduro regime and of Hugo Chávez have led to what is probably the largest displacement of people in south American history. We need a peaceful transition to democracy through free and fair presidential elections. In the meantime, the UK is providing more than £14 million in aid, and £10 million of that will go to countries around Venezuela that are seeing an increase in Venezuelans fleeing the country.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a treat to have two bites of the apple!
Will the Secretary of State enlighten me about how the UK can maintain moral authority around the world and criticise leaders in Venezuela and Zimbabwe for their assaults on democratic institutions when this Government are gagging our own Parliament?

Dominic Raab: I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, with whom I served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that we will raise human rights issues wherever they lie, whether in relation to Iran, to China or to Zimbabwe. We will be unflinching in doing so, even with partners with which we want to have a positive relationship.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: One sentence each, please. There are lots of Members trying to get in.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Foreign Secretary consider the early-day motion tabled by 25 parliamentarians today calling on our Government to seek agreement with other Commonwealth countries to offer Hong Kong citizens second citizenship and a place of abode? Could this be applied for as an agenda item at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting?

Dominic Raab: As I have made clear to the House, we want to see the one country, two systems model respected. Under those arrangements, reflecting the joint declaration, we have committed to the British national (overseas) status and I think it is important, for now, to stick with that.

Tommy Sheppard: The Foreign Secretary has previously campaigned against the Human Rights Act 1998. Now, in his new position, will he confirm that the protection and defence of human rights are at the centre of Government policy both at home and abroad and specifically that protection for citizens of this country will not worsen in relation to those of other European countries?

Dominic Raab: Yes.

Stephen Kerr: In line with the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report, are the Government prepared and ready to impose sanctions on the perpetrators of freedom of religion or belief abuse?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my hon. Friend for consistently raising this topic. As he will know, the Government have accepted all the recommendations in the report and work is under way to take them forward. We have established an implementation team and allocated £200,000 this year to look at concrete actions that the UK can take.

Hannah Bardell: My all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services has taken evidence from more than 60 families, including the families of Kirsty Maxwell and Julie Pearson in my own constituency. They are very clear that the system is failing them and other families. I am going to produce a report shortly, but will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this as soon as possible?

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am pleased to have taken over consular services, which assist British nationals travelling, living and working overseas. I appreciate her expertise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this further.

Richard Graham: We need five more sitting days for parliamentary approval of the accession of the Republic of North Macedonia to NATO. Will this be achieved before the next slightly premature recess?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I think that it is probably one for the Leader of the House.

Laura Pidcock: Natalie Jackson has not seen or had any contact from her son Dylan, who is 11, in more than a year because her ex-partner has not returned him home after a summer holiday in 2018. The High Court has made Dylan a ward of court and ordered his immediate return, but his return was denied by the Turkish courts. I have written to the Secretary of State about this. Please will he answer, and meet me urgently so that we can deliver Dylan back to his mother?

Christopher Pincher: Given the urgency of this matter, I will of course meet the hon. Lady.

Hugo Swire: As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reconfigures its global representation by beefing up embassies and opening other embassies post-Brexit, will my right hon. Friend undertake to conduct an audit into other Government Departments that are represented abroad to ensure that they are all brought under the ambassador or high commissioner in that country?

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. He is absolutely right to stress that when we speak internationally, we do so with one voice.

Liz Twist: With climate change becoming increasingly evident and important, what progress has been made in tackling climate change through international co-operation?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are absolutely clear that a global Britain would pursue international issues such as climate change. We are seeking to host COP 26 in 2020, which shows the leadership that we intend to take in this area.

John Bercow: For one sentence—in hope, not expectation —I call Alistair Burt.

Alistair Burt: Following Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif’s visit to the G7 summit, will my right hon. Friend bring me up to date on what the United Kingdom is currently doing to try to ease tensions with Iran, bearing in mind that that may have provided an opportunity?

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his expertise in this area. Our approach to Iran is simple: we want it to de-escalate tensions and to come in from the cold. The Iranians can do that by respecting  internationally recognised rights for consular nationals, the nuclear deal, and freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:
Jane Dodds, for Brecon and Radnorshire.

G7 SUMMIT

Boris Johnson: Before I begin my statement, I am sure that the whole House will join me in remembering that this country entered the second world war 80 years ago today. It is of course true that the horror of that conflict surpasses all modern controversies. It is also true that this country still stands—then as now—for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the fight against racial and religious hatred, and I know that this whole House is united in defending those values around the world.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the G7 summit in Biarritz. As I speak, vast tracts of the Amazon rainforest are on fire, free trade is in retreat, 130 million girls worldwide are not in education and our oceans are being foully polluted, so it has never been more important for a global Britain to use our voice as an agent for change and progress. It is only by exerting our influence at a global level and only by sticking up for our values and beliefs that we can create the international context for Britain to prosper and to ensure that this is the greatest place on earth to live, work, start a family, open a business, trade and invest. So at the G7, I made the case for free trade as an engine of prosperity and progress that has lifted billions out of poverty, yet the reality is that trade, as a share of the world economy, has been stagnant for the last decade. In the leaders’ declaration, the G7 unanimously endorsed open and fair world trade and was determined to reform the World Trade Organisation and to reach agreement next year to simplify regulatory barriers.
Britain is on the verge of taking back control of our trade policy and restoring our independent seat in the WTO for the first time in 46 years. Our exports to the United States—[Interruption.] I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) all the best. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I ask the House to have some regard to how our proceedings are viewed by people outside the Chamber. I will always facilitate the expression of opinion by this House. [Interruption.] Order. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is making a statement. That statement should be heard, and he will be heard, as will every other Member. End of subject.

Boris Johnson: Britain is on the verge of taking back control of our trade policy, as I said. [Interruption.] On the verge. We could achieve even more in our trade with the United States by using the powers we will regain to do a comprehensive free trade deal—a deal in which both President Trump and I have agreed that the NHS is not on the table. Unlike some in the House, I consider the United States to be a natural ally and a force for good in the world, and I recoil from the visceral, juvenile anti-Americanism that would do such profound damage to this country’s interest.
I know the whole House will share my concern about the gravity of the situation in Hong Kong. As a nation with a deep belief in freedom of expression and assembly, we stand firm in upholding Hong Kong’s way of life, guaranteed by one country, two systems. I welcome the unwavering support of my G7 counterparts on this  vital matter. The UK is at the forefront of a new campaign to end the tragic loss of species around the world. We cannot bequeath a planet where the Sumatran tiger and the African elephant, and entire ecosystems like the great barrier reef, live in the shadow of destruction, so I am delighted that the G7 accepted UK proposals for more ambitious targets to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity. Britain is responsible for 2.6 million square miles of ocean, the fifth largest marine estate in the world. Our blue belt programme will ensure that marine protected areas encompass 1.5 million square miles and, at the G7, I announced a further £7 million for this vital effort.
I also announced another £10 million to protect the rainforest in Brazil, where 41,000 fires have raged so far this year—more than twice as many as in the same period in 2018. Britain is bidding to host the UN’s 26th climate change conference next year. If we succeed, we shall focus on solutions that harness the power of nature, including reforestation. There is one measure that would address all those issues. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members think that is a waste of money, it tells us all we need to know about the modern Labour party.
One measure that will address all those issues is to ensure that every girl in the world receives the education that is her right. That would not only curb infant mortality, eradicate illiteracy and reduce population pressures but would strike a blow for morality and justice. In Biarritz the G7 therefore endorsed the UK’s campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, and I announced £90 million of new funding so that 600,000 children in countries torn by conflict, where girls are twice as likely as boys to be out of the classroom, get the chance to go to school.
As well as my G7 colleagues, I was delighted to meet other leaders, including President Ramaphosa of South Africa, Prime Minister Modi of India and Prime Minister Morrison of Australia, who, heroically, masked his emotions in the face of the historic innings of Ben Stokes. In every conversation, I was struck by the enthusiasm of my colleagues to strengthen their relations with this country, whether on trade, security and defence, or science and technology. I was also able to use the G7 to follow up my conversations in Berlin and Paris with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron on Brexit, as well as with Prime Minister Conte, Prime Minister Sánchez and President Tusk. I have since spoken to Commission President Juncker and many other leaders. I was able to make it clear to them all that everyone in this Government wants a deal. [Interruption.] We do. We do. But it is a reality that the House of Commons has rejected the current withdrawal agreement three times, and it simply cannot be resurrected. [Interruption.] And that is why I wrote to President Tusk—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Sheerman, I look to you as a senior and distinguished elder statesman in the House to set an example of good behaviour, analogous to the Buddha-like calm of the Father of the House, which is exhibited at all times.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
That is why I wrote to President Tusk on 19 August to set out our arguments why any future agreement must include the abolition of the anti-democratic backstop. [Interruption.] Which, by the way, is opposed on all  sides of the House. We have also been clear that we will need changes to the political declaration, to clarify that our future relationship with the EU will be based on a free trade agreement and giving us full control over our regulations, our trade, and our foreign and defence policy. This clarity has brought benefits; far from jeopardising negotiations, it is making them more straight- forward.
In the last few weeks, I believe that the chances of a deal have risen. This week, we are intensifying the pace of meetings in Brussels. Our European friends can see that we want an agreement and they are beginning to reflect that reality in their response. President Macron said—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, Opposition Members don’t want to hear the words of our counterparts across the channel. They don’t want to hear about any progress that we might be making. [Interruption.] They don’t. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear everything said—

Hon. Members:: He’s mumbling!

John Bercow: I have never had any difficulty hearing the Prime Minister, but if it is necessary for him to speak up, I am certain that he will overcome his natural shyness in order to do so.

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I think they are wilfully closing their ears to the reality that our friends and partners are increasingly seeing the possibilities of an agreement. Again, I quote President Macron of France, who said:
“If there are things which, as part of what was negotiated by Michel Barnier, can be adapted and are in keeping with the two objectives I’ve…mentioned, stability in Ireland”—
which we all support—
“and the integrity of the single market—we should identify them in the coming months.”
Is that the negative spirit of those on the Opposition Benches? No, it is not. And speaking in Berlin of possible alternatives to the backstop, Chancellor Merkel of Germany said:
“Once we see and say this could be a possible outcome, this could be a possible arrangement, this backstop as a sort of placeholder is no longer necessary.”
That is a positive spirit, which we are not, I am afraid, hearing echoed on the other side of the House today. I believe there are indeed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are fleeing already. There are indeed solutions—they don’t want to hear about solutions. They don’t want to hear about any of them. There are practical arrangements that we can find which avoid anyone putting infrastructure on the Irish border—I say that to the departing back of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and he knows it well. These have been well worked out and involve measures such as trusted trader schemes, transit provisions, frontier zones, reduced bureaucracy for small and local traders, and many others.
In particular, we recognise—[Interruption.] I advise Opposition Members to pay attention to what is being said. We recognise that for reasons of geography and economics, agri-food is increasingly managed on a common basis across the island of Ireland. We are ready to find a way forward that recognises this reality, provided that it  clearly enjoys the consent of all parties and institutions with an interest. We will discuss that with the EU shortly, and I will discuss it with the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, when I see him in Dublin on Monday.
It is simply wrong to say that we are not making progress. There is a lot to do in the coming days, but things are moving. A major reason for that is that everyone can see that this Government are utterly determined to leave the EU on 31 October, come what may, without a deal if necessary. That is why over the summer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been leading the Government’s efforts, seven days a week, to accelerate our national preparations for that possibility. He will make a statement on that subject shortly. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made all the necessary funds available. We have already reached agreements with our partners to roll over trade deals worth around £89 billion of exports and imports. We have secured air services agreements around the world. We have increased the capacity of our Border Force, strengthened the resilience of our ports, bolstered our freight capacity and worked in meticulous detail to ensure the uninterrupted supply of critical goods, including medicines. We will be ready.
I returned from the G7 with real momentum in the Brexit discussions. I want to return from next month’s European Council in a similar way, with a deal that this House can debate, scrutinise and endorse in time for our departure on 31 October. But there is one step that would jeopardise all the progress that we have made in the G7 and around the capitals of Europe, and that is if this House were to decide that it was simply impossible for us to leave without a deal and to make that step illegal. [Interruption.] That is what they want—to undermine our negotiations; to force us to beg for yet another pointless delay. If that happens, all the progress we have been making will have been for nothing.
Yesterday, a Bill was published—a Bill that the Leader of the Opposition has spent all summer working on. It is not a Bill in any normal sense of the word: it is without precedent in our history. It is a Bill that, if passed, would force me to go to Brussels and beg for an extension. It would force me to accept the terms offered. It would destroy any chance of negotiation for a new deal. It would destroy it. Indeed, it would enable our friends in Brussels to dictate the terms of the negotiation. That is what it would do. There is only one way to describe the Bill: it is Jeremy Corbyn’s surrender Bill. That is what it is. It means running up the white flag—the Bill is shameful. I want to make it clear to everybody in this House: there are no circumstances in which I will ever accept anything like it. I will never surrender the control of our negotiations in the way that the Leader of the Opposition is demanding. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. People must not keep ranting from a sedentary position. However long it takes, the statement will be heard and the response to it will be heard. That is the reality and nothing can gainsay it.

Boris Johnson: We promised the people that we would get Brexit done. We promised to respect the result of the referendum, and we must do so now.  Enough is enough. The country wants this done and it wants the referendum respected. We are negotiating a deal, and though I am confident of getting a deal, we will leave by 31 October in all circumstances. There will be no further pointless delay. This House has never before voted to force the Prime Minister to surrender such a crucial decision to the discretion of our friends and neighbours overseas. What this Bill would mean is that, unless we agreed to the terms of our friends and partners, they would be able to keep us in the EU for as long as they want and on their terms. I therefore urge this House to reject the Bill tonight, so that we can get the right deal for our country, deliver Brexit and take the whole country forward. I commend this statement to the House.

John Bercow: Order. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no vote on a Bill tonight. There is a vote on a motion, and if that motion is successful there will be a Bill tomorrow. [Interruption.] Order. I say this simply because the intelligibility of our proceedings to those observing them is important, and I am sure that everybody from all parts of the House will recognise that fundamental truth.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. I join with him in recognising the great human suffering of world war two and the great human bravery that took place during that awful conflict that began 80 years ago, which was essential in defeating the disgusting ideology of the Nazis and of fascism at that time.
The Prime Minister met EU leaders over the summer and EU Council President Tusk at the G7 summit. After those meetings, the Prime Minister struck an optimistic note, saying that the chances of a deal were, in his words, “improving”. His optimism was not shared by those who had been at the same meetings. The Prime Minister may claim that progress is being made, but EU leaders report that the Government have so far failed to present any new proposals. Can the Prime Minister clear this up? Can he tell us whether the UK has put forward any new proposal in relation to the backstop? If it has, will he publish them so that these proposals can be scrutinised by Parliament and by the public?
It is becoming increasingly clear that this reckless Government have only one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal. The reality is exposed today in the in-house journal of the Conservative party—otherwise known as The Daily Telegraph—which reports that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff has called the negotiations “a sham”, that the strategy is to “run down the clock”, and that the proposal to alter the backstop is “a complete fantasy”—and those are the words of the Attorney General.
No deal will mean food shortages, reduced medical supplies and chaos at our ports. It is not me saying that; it is the Government’s own leaked analysis that says that, and it warns of chaos across the board. Today, we had expected the publication of the Government’s no deal preparations. The Government are hiding from scrutiny and hiding from the people and they are trying to hide us from their true intentions. This is not just a Government in chaos, but a Government of cowardice. Thankfully, some in Whitehall are putting those vital  documents into the public domain, but we should not have to rely on sporadic leaks. Will the Prime Minister set out today when these documents will be published so that the people and Parliament can scrutinise and debate them? Many on the Government Benches would relish a no deal. They see it as an opportunity to open up Britain to a one-sided trade deal that puts us at the mercy of Donald Trump and United States corporations and that will increase the wealth of a few at the expense of the many.
When it comes to the crunch, too many on the Government Benches who once opposed a no-deal outcome are now putting their own careers before the good of the people of this country. Just look at all those Tory leadership candidates who said that it would be wrong to suspend Parliament in order to make no deal more likely, but who sit passively as their principles of just a few short weeks ago are cast aside—I do not know what they were doing over their summer holidays, but something has changed. And it gets worse, because not only have they all stood by while the Prime Minister launches his latest attack on democracy, but some have repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility of the Government ignoring any law passed by Parliament that attempts to stop a no-deal Brexit. Will the Prime Minister therefore take this opportunity, when he responds in a moment, to assure the country that his Government will abide by any legislation passed by Parliament this week?
The attack on our democracy in order to force through a disastrous no-deal Brexit is unprecedented, anti-democratic and unconstitutional. Labour will do all we can to protect our industry, protect our democracy and protect our people against this dangerous and reckless Government.
I condemn the rhetoric that the Prime Minister used when he talked about a “surrender Bill”. I really hope that he will reflect on his use of language. We are not surrendering because we are at war with Europe; they are surely our partners. If anything, it is a no-deal exit that would mean surrendering our industry, our jobs, and our standards and protections in a trade deal with Donald Trump and the United States.
The UK should be using its position in the G7 to promote policies to tackle the climate emergency. The climate emergency is real, but instead of standing up to President Trump, it was in fact agreed this time, in order to save his blushes, that there would be no joint communiqué on this at the G7. That is not leadership; that is fiddling while the Amazon burns. The situation across the Amazon should be a wake-up call to the Prime Minister, who once described global warming as a “primitive fear…without foundation”. As we watch fires rage, and not only across the Amazon but in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, does he stand by those sentiments?
While funds to protect and restore the Amazon rain forest are welcome, the Prime Minister knows that this is merely a drop in the ocean, so will more money be pledged for the Amazon, and are additional funds being made available to tackle fires in sub-Saharan Africa? Will he be introducing measures to stop UK companies aiding, abetting and profiting from the destruction of the Amazon rain forest, and indeed rain forests in west Africa? On 1 May the UK Parliament became the first state Parliament anywhere in the world  to declare a climate emergency, and I was proud to move that motion. We must continue to show global leadership on the issue.
On Iran, it is notable that the Prime Minister fails to condemn President Trump’s unilateral decision to tear up the internationally agreed Iran nuclear deal, creating a crisis that now risks a slide into even deeper conflict. Does the Prime Minister plan to work with European partners to restore the Iran nuclear deal and de-escalate tensions in the Gulf? We are clear that in government Labour would work tirelessly through the UN for a negotiated reinstatement of the nuclear deal, and to defuse the threat of war in the Gulf. Effective diplomacy, not threats and bluster, must prevail. Will he call on the Iranian authorities to end the unjust detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and what actions has he taken so far to ensure her release from the terrible situation that she has been plunged into?
We are all concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. No Government anywhere should get to shut down rights and freedoms, or to pick and choose which laws they adhere to. Will the Prime Minister urge the Chinese Government to stick to the joint declaration of 1984 and stand up for the rights of citizens in Hong Kong?
Later today, this House has a last chance to stop this Government riding roughshod over constitutional and democratic rights in this country, so that a cabal in Downing Street cannot crash us out without a deal, without any democratic mandate and against the majority of public opinion. The Prime Minister is not winning friends in Europe; he is losing friends at home. His is a Government with no mandate, no morals and—as of today—no majority.

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that this country has engaged actively with our European friends and partners to make sense of the Iran nuclear deal and to ensure that that deal continues. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary continues to work actively not only to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, but on all the very sad consular cases that we are currently dealing with in Iran. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the work of all his officials.
I am glad for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of preserving democracy in Hong Kong, and he will observe the strength of the G7 statement on that matter. But quite frankly, when it comes to the Bill that he is assisting to bring forward tomorrow, with the procedure that is coming forward tonight, let us be in no doubt that this man is a former Bennite. In fact, I believe that he is still a Bennite. He voted against every single piece of EU legislation. He voted against Maastricht. He voted against Lisbon. Time and time and time again, he has said that we must uphold the result of the EU referendum. Time and time again, he has said that he is on the side of democracy and vindicating the will of the people. And what do we see now? He has been converted—with his hordes of Momentum activists trying to take over the streets—into the agent of those who would subvert democracy and overturn the will of the people. That is what he wants to do. He wants to entrust the decision about how long this country remains in the European Union to our friends and partners in Brussels, and not to this House. That is not democracy.
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, inadvertently or not, has become the agent of further delay, further confusion and further uncertainty for business in this country and abroad. That is what he is prescribing. That is what he stands for. That is the result of his policy. I urge everybody on all sides of the House not to support his approach. Let us go forward, and not back with the right hon. Gentleman.

Kenneth Clarke: It seems to me that the Prime Minister’s extraordinary knockabout performance today merely confirms his obvious strategy, which is to set conditions that make no deal inevitable, to make sure that as much blame as possible is attached to the EU and to this House for that consequence, and then—as quickly as he can—to fight a flag-waving general election before the consequences of no deal become too obvious to the public. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would let me know whether that clear explanation of his policy is one that he entirely accepts. Does he also accept that if he gets his way and gets no deal, we will then have to begin years of negotiations with the Europeans and the rest of the world about getting new trade, security and other arrangements in force? Does he seriously think that this approach will obtain from any other country in the world a free trade arrangement that is half as good as the Common Market that Conservative Governments have helped to put together over the years?

Boris Johnson: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am a keen fan and a lifelong fan of —[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say in response to the question, and that response must be heard.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Father of the House knows, I am a long-standing admirer of his. Indeed, I was the only member of the 2001 intake to vote for my right hon. and learned Friend as leader of the Conservative party. [Interruption.] I was—a fact that I do not think he much thanked me for at the time. I have long been a fan of his, and indeed in many ways we are ad idem in our views. I agree with him—I do not want an election. We do not want an election. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition wants an election, by the way, as far as I can make it out. We do not want an election; we want to get the deal done, and the best way to get a deal is to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
My goodness—this is the second time the Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box, and this must be the shortest-lived honeymoon in parliamentary history; you simply have to look around his Benches. He may say that he does not want an election, and his colleagues certainly do not want one, but I will let him into a secret: we do, because we want the people of Scotland to be able to have their say on this shambolic Government. The Leader of the House talks about the strategy of the  Prime Minister. We hear use of the words “collaborators” and “surrender”; the Prime Minister really should have some dignity and show some respect for the office he —temporarily—holds.
Of course, one of the most remarkable things that took place during the statement was to see the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) cross the Floor. Prime Minister: you have lost your majority.
Over the weekend, we saw commemorations across the world to mark the 80th anniversary of the second world war, when brave citizens came together and stood together against tyranny. My thoughts and those of my party are with those who suffered, the veterans and their families. We should also recognise that the European Union is the legacy of two world wars that had ripped Europe apart. The European Union has been an important vehicle for peace and stability in Europe.
Turning to the G7 summit, I wish to express my shared concern at the unrest in Hong Kong. I also associate myself with the actions on climate change and on protecting the Amazon rain forest. But I take issue with President Trump’s comments in relation to Russia. It is not acceptable to condone Russia’s military and cyber aggression around the world. Furthermore, while the summit declared its support for progress in Ukraine, the President of the United States failed to challenge Russia’s violation of international law in Ukraine—another utterly disgraceful lack of leadership from the President of the United States.
Following the summit, the Prime Minister displayed his own lack of leadership by moving to prorogue Parliament and strip power away from elected representatives—closing down Parliament by sending three Privy Counsellors to instruct the Queen to sanction the closure of Parliament. Three Privy Counsellors acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister to shut down Parliament: where is the democracy in that? While he can dance around and profess to speak for the people, we all know the truth—he is in fact doing the opposite. By proroguing Parliament, the Prime Minister is robbing the people of power; robbing them of a say over their future.
In true Trumpian style, the Prime Minister is acting more like a tinpot dictator than a democrat. He talks of the will of the people—but what about the will of the people of Scotland? Prime Minister, the Scottish people did not vote for Brexit. The people of Scotland did not vote for a no-deal Brexit. They did not vote for the Tory party and they certainly did not vote for this Prime Minister. The people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly against the Tory party and this Government. The people of Scotland made their choice, and they chose that the SNP should be their voice. So I ask the Prime Minister: are you a democrat, or not; do you respect the will of the Scottish people, or not? Will you, Prime Minister, if you believe yourself not to be the latter, then give the people back their say: allow Parliament to have its say; respect the will of Parliament in stopping a no-deal Brexit—a no-deal Brexit that would be devastating for jobs and communities?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the US’s attitude towards Russia. May I gently remind him that, when it came to the Skripal poisonings in Salisbury, the United States expelled  60 diplomats in support of the UK, in solidarity with the UK and to show their revulsion at Russian behaviour? As for whether or not it is right to have a Queen’s Speech, the Opposition have been calling for a Queen’s Speech just about every week—finally they get one, and they protest.
On the EU, it remains the policy of the Scottish nationalist party once we have come out of the European Union on 31 October—it is their avowed policy; they are inevitably committed to this by logic—to go back into the EU. That is what they say they want to do if they were to achieve independence: to submit to the whole panoply of EU law, to scrap the pound in favour of some unknown currency hitherto unbaptised—the Salmond, the Sturgeon or whatever it happens to be—and, above all, to hand back control of Scotland’s fisheries to the EU, just as they have been reclaimed by this country. What an extraordinary policy!

John Redwood: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, from 1 November, it will be the UK Government and authorities in control of our ports such as Dover? Will he confirm that it will be the Government’s policy to ensure the smooth transit of food, pharmaceuticals and other goods into our country, as today, so that there will not be shortages?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm that that is exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and others have been preparing for months and that those measures are now well in train.

Jo Swinson: The Prime Minister has lost his majority, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) joining the Liberal Democrats. Doctors like him tell me that they want to stop Brexit because it will plunge our NHS into deep crisis, haemorrhaging vital staff and threatening access to life-saving medicines. When will the Prime Minister stop playing with people’s lives and stop Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I am glad that the hon. Lady has given me occasion to remind the House that there are now in fact 700 more doctors in the NHS since the vote to leave the EU. Just in the last six weeks, we have been able to announce another £1.8 billion going to 20 new hospital upgrades around the country, in addition to the £34 billion extra that the Conservative Government are putting into the NHS. I am grateful to her for allowing me to point that out.

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend has assured me that he is very keen to get a deal with the European Union, but last Friday Chancellor Merkel of Germany observed somewhat acerbically that nine days into the 30 days that the Prime Minister had requested during his visit to Berlin, she had not yet seen any proposals from the United Kingdom. Could the Prime Minister now make a commitment to publish this afternoon the UK’s proposals, so that those of us who are considering what to do later today can have had the benefit of seeing them? Will he further commit to transmitting those proposals without delay to the European Union?

Boris Johnson: Actually, as I told my right hon. Friend this morning, Chancellor Merkel was making an elementary point, which is that we could easily do a deal within 30 days, and we certainly shall. What she also said is that there is no point—[Interruption.] What my friends across the EU have said is that there is no point in having a negotiation or beginning formal talks as long as there is a risk that Parliament will make that negotiation impossible by taking away the ability of this country to negotiate. So every time we set out ideas, the first thing they ask is what Parliament will do.
So I urge my friends tonight, I urge colleagues tonight, to give us the leeway to get the deal that we need. It is very, very clear: the outlines of the deal that can be done are very clear. If Members had been listening earlier, they would have heard in my statement the rough shape of what that deal can be, both in getting the alternative arrangements and in solving the problems of the Irish backstop. I am afraid that, by their actions—I must regretfully say this to the House—they are making that deal less likely. We are working flat out to secure it, but the measures, if passed tonight, would make our prospects of success much less likely.

Hilary Benn: It is not just Chancellor Merkel who has confirmed that no substantive proposals have been put forward. Last weekend, the Irish Deputy Prime Minister said that
“nothing credible has come from the British government”
on alternatives to the backstop. It is also reported that the Attorney General told the Prime Minister at the beginning of August that, if he insisted on the removal of the backstop, it would inevitably result in no deal. Is that true? If it is true, can the Prime Minister try and persuade the House why it is credible to argue that progress is being made in the negotiations, because a growing number of Members have come to the conclusion that what he really wants is a no-deal Brexit, and that is why many of us will try, over the next two days, to prevent that from happening—in the national interest.

Boris Johnson: The sad truth is that there are many Members in this House, I am afraid including the right hon. Gentleman, who simply want to block Brexit. That is the truth. That is the reality, and they are using the discussion of a so-called no-deal Brexit to conceal their real intentions. By their measures tonight and tomorrow, they would be fatally undermining this Government’s ability to negotiate a deal. That is the reality.
We can get a deal. We can remove the backstop. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what this country needs to do, because it is agreed on all sides of the House. The problem with the withdrawal agreement is not just the political declaration; it is the backstop. That makes agreement impossible on both sides of the House. But as long as this House is proposing motions such as the ones tonight and tomorrow, I am afraid we have no chance of getting progress from our EU friends.

Anne Main: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had about the green climate change fund and what progress has been made? Will he give us an update?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are indeed, as I said at the G7—if my memory serves me correctly, we are making a contribution of another £1.4 billion to the green climate fund and it is a high priority of this Government.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the backstop because he knows, as the entire House knows, that that is one of the fundamental reasons why the withdrawal agreement could not get through this House. Not only is it anti-democratic in the sense that laws would be made for the economy of Northern Ireland and nobody in Belfast or London would have any say at all in the making of them, or even ask questions about them, but it is contrary to the principles that people say they believe in, in the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement, which requires the consent of both communities, and no member of any Unionist party in Northern Ireland supports the backstop.
I also welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a deal, because we are committed to getting a deal—a good deal for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. When he meets the Irish Prime Minister on Monday, which I welcome, can he convey to the Prime Minister, as we have tried to convey to him, that it would be entirely sensible and reasonable for him to sit down with us, and other representatives of Unionists in Northern Ireland, for direct discussions, which would be very helpful in the current atmosphere, but which the Irish Government have consistently—amazingly—refused to do, while at the same time preaching to others about the need for conciliation and movement and progress? So I appeal to the Prime Minister, on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland, to try to get some momentum into the discussions between the Irish Republic and Unionists in Northern Ireland on this vital issue.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. He perfectly understands the issues, and knows that he and I are at one in seeking to get rid of the backstop. I believe that we can get rid of the backstop, and we can—[Hon. Members: “How?”] You see—they do not want to. They do not want to do it. We can make progress, but not if we take away the possibility of no deal, which is what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to do, and not if we give the power infinitely to extend UK membership of the EU to Brussels, which is what his Bill would do.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that when the House of Commons debated the European Union Referendum Act 2015 it was passed by a majority of six to one and that, when the House debated the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, it was passed four to one by this House? What does he think a further three or six-month delay would achieve, other than betraying those people, and those votes that we have already had?

Boris Johnson: I passionately agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said. I ask all those thinking tonight and tomorrow of voting to extend again, beyond 31 October, exactly what they are seeking to do in that interval, and what the purpose of that extension would be. Believe me: the people of this country want to get on with it and want to come out.

Angela Eagle: I am sure completely inadvertently the Prime Minister failed to answer a question that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put to him earlier: if a Bill passes that makes it illegal to leave without a deal, will he and his Government abide by the rule of law?

Boris Johnson: We will of course uphold the constitution and obey the law.

Jonathan Djanogly: Given the huge amount of political repression going on in Russia at the moment, does my right hon. Friend agree with President Trump that now is the right time to bring Russia back into the G7?

Boris Johnson: No, and I made that point very clearly at Biarritz.

Joanna Cherry: It is good to hear the Prime Minister say that he will uphold the constitution and the rule of law, because of course it is essential that the United Kingdom upholds the rule of law for effective working with the G7 in future. Will he give the House his word that he and his Government will respect legislation passed by this House and decisions made by the two legal jurisdictions in this Union—the jurisdiction in Scotland and the jurisdiction in England?

Boris Johnson: I refer the hon. and learned Lady to the answer that I gave just a moment ago.

John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his determination to keep up the pressure on Russia, which continues to illegally occupy Crimea, and whose involvement in the occupied territories in east Ukraine led to further deaths this weekend? I strongly welcome his statement at the Dispatch Box that he agrees that it is not appropriate for Russia to rejoin the G7. Will he continue to give every support to the newly elected President Zelensky and the members of the Ukrainian Parliament?

Boris Johnson: I know the great interest that my right hon. Friend has taken in Ukraine and the fortunes of that wonderful country. I assure him that President Zelensky rang me before the G7 particularly to insist on his continued concerns about the Russian activities. I am sure that those concerns are shared across the House.

Yvette Cooper: In the Prime Minister’s answer to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer he referred only to the “rough shape” of an alternative deal. Does he have any detailed proposals, and can he confirm that he has not sent any detailed proposals to the EU?

Boris Johnson: We have been in extensive talks. As the right hon. Lady will appreciate, it does not make sense to negotiate in public, but it has been clear from what I have said already that the backstop is unacceptable and so is the political declaration as currently written. We have detailed proposals of how to address both issues and we are making progress. I say respectfully to friends on both sides of the House that now is the time to allow UK negotiators to get on with their job.

Edward Leigh: In the Prime Minister’s discussions with the German Chancellor and the French President, was there discussion on the need for compromise? After all, the issue of the backstop is resolvable with compromise on all sides and there are many people in this House—moderate Brexiteers and remainers—who want to compromise. When it comes to a solution, if the EU will not change the deal and if this House will not pass the present deal, will the Prime Minister reflect on the Vienna convention and the conditional unilateral declaration, which would allow us to unilaterally state our determination to exit from the backstop?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has pursued this line of thinking for many months. I must say that I think there is a better and more elegant way of doing this. We can excise the offending bits of the treaty. We can make a great deal of progress. We can have a new treaty. It will be a vast improvement. I think that Opposition Members should look forward to that and should be encouraging and supportive of this Government’s efforts in getting us out of the EU in a way that they voted for time and time and time again.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The Prime Minister insists the UK will be ready for no deal, while at the same time duplicitously using threat to force the European Union to cave in to his non-existent alternative arrangements. Will he admit that a no-deal scenario would be catastrophic, or will he continue to face both ways—deceive the public and use no deal for his own electoral gain?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid I do not agree with what the right hon. Lady said about no deal. As I said on the steps of Downing Street, I think there will be bumps on the road, but this is a very great country and a very great economy, and we will get it done. I am afraid that the most fatal thing to getting a deal is for this country to show that it is so apprehensive about coming out on other terms as to accept anything that the EU prescribes. That is, I am afraid, the course down which the right hon. Member for Islington North is beckoning us to go. That would be a disaster.

Harriett Baldwin: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement at the G7 to give more money to Education Cannot Wait and the leadership he has consistently shown on the importance of girls’ education around the world. Will he commit to continuing to champion this cause and seek for more of our aid budget to be spent on global education?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for everything she has done, both on the development front and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to champion female education around the world. I believe that 12 years of quality education is the single most effective policy for solving most of the ills of the world.

Stephen Doughty: The Prime Minister has made a number of wild and unsubstantiated claims about the negotiations. Can I ask him directly: did the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator, Frost, in a Tuesday 27 August EU subcommittee meeting,  link the rationale for talks with the EU article 50 taskforce to “domestic political handling reasons”? Yes or no?

Boris Johnson: I do not comment on leaks. Even if I did, I have got no idea, quite frankly. I think it is highly unlikely.

David Gauke: The Prime Minister will be aware that many of us are concerned that we are currently on course to leave the European Union without a deal on 31 October, and that we will not have time to negotiate and legislate for a new deal. Those concerns were not allayed by reports in The Daily Telegraph this morning which suggested that in a strategy meeting on 29 July it was stated that the Government were going to run down the clock. Nor are our concerns allayed by the suggestion that the Attorney General, on 1 August, said that removing the backstop altogether would mean that we would not be able to reach a deal. Are those reports accurate?

Boris Johnson: I do not comment on leaks—[Interruption.] Even in pages as hallowed as the ones described. What I can tell my right hon. Friend—he asked me exactly the same question this morning—is that we are working for a deal, and I believe that we will get a deal. It should be a deal that I think everybody in this House would want to support and which, above all, their constituents would want to support. They want and we want this business to be over and for us to leave the EU on 31 October.

Anna Soubry: Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), will the Prime Minister confirm that Dominic Cummings described the renegotiations as a “sham”? Will he also tell the House—a simple yes or no will do—whether it is true that he rang the editor of The Daily Telegraph and remonstrated with him about those reports, of which we have all now heard? Yes or no, Prime Minister—did you ring him up?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but I do not comment on leaks. As I say, I saw the story on the front of the Telegraph this morning. It seemed to me wholly implausible, but—I can happily answer her question on that—I have not seen fit to ring any journalist today on any matter, because as you can imagine, I have been working flat out to get out of the EU on 31 October.

Greg Hands: When it comes to alternative arrangements to the backstop, the commission that I co-chair is making real progress. Yesterday, we published a revised withdrawal agreement and a political declaration. We are hosting a conference in Dundalk next week, bringing together parliamentarians from across these islands. I thank the Prime Minister for the meetings that I have had with his team and I assure him that our proposals are in very good shape going forward.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the fantastic work that he has done with many colleagues to prepare for the alternative arrangements that really do hold out the prospect of a solution to the problem of  the Northern Irish border—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would care to study the report, he might elucidate himself on that matter. There are a number of proposals that have been made, and indeed, many others, that hold out real hope of progress, but those are not the only areas in which we are making progress. There are several areas in which we are now discussing how the UK can retire whole and perfect from the EU while retaining the integrity of the market in Ireland. That is a hard thing to achieve, but it can be done.

Barry Sheerman: First, I apologise to the Prime Minister because I did explode a little when he said something about loyalty and I thought about the loyalty that was sometimes deficient when we had a different Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). My apologies for that, but the one thing that I really welcome out of the G7 statement he made is what he said about girls’ education. My daughter was a special adviser to a former Foreign Secretary. Will he tell me whether it is right that a special adviser could be treated like the young woman was in No. 10—to be sacked on the spot and marched out of No. 10 by an armed police officer? Is that the way to treat women in work, or is it not?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support that he gives to our campaign and the UK cause of 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, and indeed, I thank members of his family for what they have done to support that campaign. On staffing matters, I will not comment, as he would expect.

John Baron: Most of us in this place would prefer a good trade deal to no deal at all, but will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that of the top 10 of the EU’s trading partners, half trade on WTO no-deal terms? Will he therefore continue to put to the sword this ludicrous suggestion that Britain would be incapable of trading on such terms? We would prosper.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is totally right. There is a huge opportunity for the UK to recover its standing, which it used to have before 1973, as a great individual actor and campaigner for global free trade. That is what we are going to do, not just with a great free trade deal with our EU friends, which of course will be the centrepiece of our negotiations, but with free trade deals around the world.

Caroline Lucas: Ten million pounds to protect the rain forest is welcome, but far more effective would be to stand up to President Bolsonaro, who is deliberately accelerating and encouraging these fires to open up more of the Amazon, threatening indigenous communities and accelerating the climate crisis. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and refuse any future trading arrangements with Brazil unless and until high environmental and human rights standards are properly and fully enforced?

Boris Johnson: I would be reluctant to encourage any measure now that did anything to reduce free trade around the world. It would be much better to support the reforestation of Brazil in the way we are. We have a campaign to plant 1 trillion trees.

Steve Brine: As the Prime Minister knows, my constituents are passionately pro-deal, and I think he is too; in fact I know he is—he has told me that personally and he has told the House many times. But can I bust one of the most dishonest myths of all, which is that one cannot respect the referendum result and be in favour of leaving with a deal? That is where I and, I think, all my constituents are. The Prime Minister has said today that the chances of a deal have increased and that things are moving. What evidence of progress can he put before the House before the vote this week? It could be critical to where people such as me go.

Boris Johnson: I would just make one point: before we began our efforts, it was common ground with the EU27 that every dot and comma of the withdrawal agreement was immutable and could not be changed, but that is no longer the case. We are already shifting them, in Ireland, in Berlin and in France. Progress is being made, and now is not the time to slacken that work.

Stewart McDonald: Ruth Davidson walked last week, the Prime Minister’s majority in this place has gone this week, and he might even expel his hero Churchill’s grandson from his own party. I do not care what he does to his own party, but I take exception to the impact of his policy on Scotland. Would Scots not be better to vote for independence so as to maintain our place in the EU?

Boris Johnson: Scots did not swallow that argument in 2014—[Interruption.] No, they rejected it by a thumping majority. They could see that they were better off together with the rest of the UK, and so it remains.

Richard Drax: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing we hear about in this place is the democratic will of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU? Make no mistake: the motion, if passed tonight, and the Bill on Wednesday, would mean nothing less than revocation of article 50, because they would bind his hands to the point that we would never ever be able to leave?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am afraid that too many people who want to vote for the motions tonight and tomorrow really seek to frustrate the will of the people and to overturn and cancel the result of the referendum.

Jessica Morden: Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity at the G7 to discuss the steel industry? I ask this on behalf of the 380 employees of Cogent Orb in Newport who yesterday received the devastating news that Tata is to close its plant. It is tragic for them, and tragic as it is the only plant in the UK that produces electrical steel that could, with Government encouragement, be a part of the supply chain for electric vehicles.

Boris Johnson: A huge amount of work is going on at the moment in respect of the Tata investments. The hon. Lady will have seen what was achieved recently with British Steel in Scunthorpe and Skinningrove. I thank my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary for that, and indeed the previous Business Secretary for his  work in getting the deal done. We will indeed ensure that British steel—UK steel—is used in the supply chain for electric vehicles.

Ross Thomson: Canada is in the Commonwealth, and is a close friend, ally and defence to trade. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the nature of his discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Biarritz?

Boris Johnson: My discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau were extremely friendly. We look forward to rolling over the comprehensive economic and trade agreement—the free trade deal—with Canada, and taking our relations to new heights.

Meg Hillier: Once again we have heard bluff and bluster from the Prime Minister, after a summer during which he found a veritable forest of magic money trees. Can he tell me where he will find the money—or has he found a pot of gold?

Boris Johnson: May I invite the hon. Lady to listen to the Chancellor’s spending review statement tomorrow? If she is seriously opposing this spending on schools, hospitals and police when it is well within the limits of fiscal prudence—if that is really what the Labour party is all about now—I think she should say so.

Owen Paterson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, during his various conversations over the past few weeks, he has made it absolutely clear to all our neighbours and partners that we will establish complete sovereign control over our exclusive economic zone from 1 November, and that we will negotiate, like a perfectly normal, independent maritime nation, reciprocal arrangements with our neighbours? In that context, has he already begun negotiations with our Nordic neighbours, given that arrangements with them would normally be settled over the coming few weeks with a view to a 1 January start?

Boris Johnson: I can certainly confirm that we will be out of the common fisheries policy by 2020. We will take back control of our fisheries—unlike the Scottish National party, which, in a supine and invertebrate way, would hand them back to Brussels.

Jess Phillips: I beg the Prime Minister to answer the question that I am going to ask, rather than just saying “No comment” as if this were a magazine interview.
Along with others, I have filed papers for a legal case against the prorogation of Parliament, because I do not want the Domestic Abuse Bill—for which so many people in this House have worked so hard—to fall. I signed my witness statements yesterday. I had to go to my mother-in-law’s to print them, because I do not have a printer, but I think that they probably have one at No. 10.
Is it true that senior civil servants have refused to sign witness statements for ongoing legal proceedings relating to the prorogation? Were the director of legislative affairs and the Cabinet Secretary asked to do so, and did they agree? I signed mine; did they?

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Lady would imagine, the proper processes were gone through to ensure that we were able to announce a Queen’s Speech. Opposition Members have been calling for a Queen’s Speech for week after week, and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has demanded one. [Interruption.] She has. We will also ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill and other Bills receive proper consideration and are rolled over.

Mark Pritchard: This is, of course, a G7 statement, and the Prime Minister is a celebrated internationalist, but may I make a local point? The people of Shropshire, in five constituencies, voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. Can my right hon. Friend make a slight departure from great matters of state, and reassure the good people of Shropshire that Brexit will be delivered?

Boris Johnson: I can, and the surest way to deliver Brexit with a deal is to vote with the Government, both tonight and tomorrow.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: For automotive manufacturers in my constituency and beyond, the WTO tariffs that would apply in the case of a no-deal Brexit would not only wipe out their profits but often exceed them. Why should anyone take what the Prime Minister says about jobs and investment seriously when he has been so reckless with people’s livelihoods?

Boris Johnson: We are working with all sectors, including automotive supply chains, to protect their interests, but of course the best way to ensure that we do not have a no-deal Brexit is to support the Government and to oppose the measures that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward.

Vicky Ford: May I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning Ben Stokes in his speech? I was lucky enough to be there that day, and it reminded me that sometimes even the most difficult of challenges can be achieved. I do believe it will be possible to achieve an agreed negotiation with the EU, although it is difficult. If it is achieved on 17 October, is there sufficient time for this House to approve all the necessary legislation before the end of that month?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed there is time, and we have gone over that thoroughly. I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s confidence; she speaks as someone well-acquainted with the ways of Brussels and the EU, and she will know that the deals are always done, as it were, on the steps of the court in the final furlong. That is where we will get the deal.

Liz Kendall: Can the Prime Minister completely set the record straight on this? If Parliament passes legislation requiring him to request an extension of article 50 beyond 31 October, will he abide by the law?

Boris Johnson: I have answered this question twice before. We will abide by the law, but I have to say I think it is a quite incredible thing to propose, deleterious  to the interests of this country and this Government, and which will make it impossible for us to get the deal this country needs.

David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend explain in greater detail the steps taken at the G7 to protect endangered species?

Boris Johnson: I can indeed explain. My hon. Friend will recall that under the Kyoto protocol, targets were set for the reduction of greenhouse gases; what the world now wants to see is specific targets—quanta—for the protection of endangered species, whether flora or fauna. It is a tragedy that the number of elephants in the wild is down now to about 300,000 and the number of lions down to perhaps 15,000; we are seeing the tragic reduction of species around the world, and the world needs to work together to prevent that loss of habitat and loss of species, and that is what we agreed to do at G7. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) does not care about it, but, believe me, the people of this country care passionately—they care passionately about what is happening to animals around the world. She is totally indifferent to it, but my constituents certainly are not.

Alison McGovern: The Prime Minister tells us he is going to Dublin on Monday to see the Taoiseach where no doubt he will be asked, as he has been asked today, about his proposals for the backstop, so may I ask if he has seen the comment from former Member of this House Gavin Barwell, who says that he has
“had same reports re ‘sham negotiations’ from multiple govt sources”
and that if it is not true, the Government should publish their proposals to replace the backstop? Why will he not do that?

Boris Johnson: We do not negotiate in public, but I think I have given the House quite a lot already about what we want and what we want to do. The one thing that will stop us achieving this is if our negotiating ability is neutralised by this House of Commons.

Huw Merriman: In order to get the leverage to get this great deal through that the Prime Minister is working on, he has said that any Member on these Benches who does not vote tonight in support of the Government will lose the Whip and indeed not be able to stand again as a Conservative MP. Working on that basis, in the event that a deal is reached, which I very much hope it will be, will that treatment apply to those MPs who do not vote for his great deal?

Boris Johnson: I think my hon. Friend can take it that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Rachel Reeves: Your argument seems to be that you have a plan but that you just cannot share it with the House, or indeed with Chancellor Merkel, and that we just have to trust you; and that  Parliament, which has a mandate—unlike your Government, who no longer have a majority—should not legislate against a no deal because that would somehow scupper your plans, which nobody knows. Prime Minister, why should we trust that you have a plan and, indeed, that you can deliver it?

Boris Johnson: I will tell you why, Mr Speaker. It is because the alternative is more delay, more chaos, more confusion and uncertainty for British business, and the infinite protraction of UK membership of the EU at the behest of the EU itself. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing.

Maggie Throup: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the leaders of Europe are willing to give the Government time to bring forward new proposals for leaving the EU with a deal, ahead of the crucial summit on 17 October, so should this House?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right. We need time to get this deal over the line. The crucial summit will be on 17 October—that is when the deal is generally expected to be done—and I would kindly ask the House not to fetter the ability of our negotiators to do that deal.

Stella Creasy: In response to the suggestion by Chancellor Merkel that a deal could be done in 30 days and that alternative proposals could be put forward, the Prime Minister said:
“You rightly say the onus is on us to produce those solutions…You have set a very blistering timetable of 30 days—if I understood you correctly, I am more than happy with that.”
Given that the Prime Minister accepted the 30-day challenge, and said that the onus was on this place and this country to come up with solutions, why will he not answer the question from the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)? [Interruption.] Wait for it, Prime Minister! That is the question that we are all asking: where is the evidence that, halfway towards his own deadline, he has done anything at all?

Boris Johnson: I really think that the hon. Lady should learn to count. The 30-day timetable may have begun, but it has not elapsed. What our friends and partners want to see is that the House of Commons is not going to block Brexit. They are not going to make a concession to this side, to our country, until they know that the House of Commons is not going to block Brexit. We will be bringing forward our proposals in due time, long before the 30 days are up, but what we want to see is that the UK Parliament stands behind our negotiators. And that is what they want to see in Brussels.

Stephen Hammond: I voted for the withdrawal agreement three times, so I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister expects to make progress throughout September and October. He will know that it was the policy of the previous Prime Minister to keep this House regularly updated. For those of us who are considering how to vote tonight, were he to reconsider his decision and make statements throughout the whole of September and October, that would be a material factor.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; we have battled together on many fronts. I can commit, of course, to updating the House regularly on this matter. It is highly unlikely that you could keep me away—when the House is sitting—and that is what I will do. Indeed, my hon. Friend can expect a statement right now from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, so he does not have to wait until September.

Pat McFadden: The Prime Minister has described the consequences of a no-deal exit as a few “bumps in the road”. If that is the case, is not the right time to have a general election after his few bumps in the road have been implemented, when he can fully own the consequences, rather than relying on making statements about them before they have actually happened?

Boris Johnson: I do not want an election; I want to deliver Brexit on 31 October, and I think that that is what the people of this country want.

Shailesh Vara: The United Kingdom already has close links with India, not least because of the valuable contribution made by the 1.6 million who make up the British-Indian diaspora. What discussions did my right hon. Friend have at the G7 with Prime Minister Modi of India about strengthening those ties post-Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I did indeed have an extremely good conversation with Prime Minister Modi, and we agreed to strengthen our co-operation not just on the security side, where clearly the UK and India stand shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terror, but on military co-operation in the Asia-Pacific region, where we share many interests, and, of course, on free trade as well—doing a big free trade deal with India. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to promote that incredibly important relationship.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The G7 has delivered great things for the Global Fund’s fight against AIDS, saving an estimated 27 million lives worldwide, but does the Prime Minister agree that its primary function is to see countries come together for mutual benefit? What benefit does the Prime Minister believe the 2019 G7 summit brought to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Boris Johnson: As I said in my statement, the UK depends on a global trading system that is open. One of the most important things agreed at the G7—in the face of rising tensions between China and America—was to support the WTO and the rules-based international system. I was delighted that Washington actually made a commitment, which I hope will be followed through, to return their member to the appellate body of the WTO in Geneva, which is important for global free trade.

Jeremy Lefroy: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), when the Prime Minister brings this deal to us next month—I very much hope and I am sure he will—will he explain whether plans are in place to pass  all the legislation between 19 October and 31 October? That seems an awful lot to do in that time, so it is vital that we get that assurance.

Boris Johnson: Of course. Other hon. Members have asked exactly the same question today. I can certainly make this offer: we would be very happy to brief my hon. Friend on exactly how that can be done. We are sure it can be done.

Kate Hoey: When there is a conflict between what the people of this country voted for after being asked a question by this Parliament and the many Members in this Parliament who seem to want to stop the people’s decision being implemented, whose side is he on?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady has been very valiant on this issue for many years, and I support and agree with her. After 45 years of EU membership—the institution has changed radically since the British people were last consulted—it was right to ask people whether they thought that their future belonged in that federalising, tightly integrating body, because that went to the questions of their identity, their future and what they thought of their country. When they returned their verdict, it was absolutely right for us to agree with and implement that verdict, and this House of Commons has promised many times to do so. I hope we now get on and do it.

Robert Halfon: My constituents, 68% of whom voted to leave, are incredibly dismayed about what they see as shenanigans in Westminster to try to stop Brexit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we do not deliver Brexit by 31 October, constituents in Harlow and across the country will have incredible mistrust in our Parliament and our democracy?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the issue. If we fail to deliver Brexit, we risk incurring a fatal lack of trust not just in the major parties—in all parties—but in our democracy itself.

Sylvia Hermon: I think the Prime Minister owes the people of Northern Ireland some explanation of why he and his Government have treated the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—in such a careless and cavalier manner. That agreement has kept stability and peace in Northern Ireland since it was signed 21 years ago.
It is reported that the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Belfast has advised the Government that a no-deal Brexit would be in contravention of the Good Friday agreement, so I call upon the Prime Minister to publish today, in full—he owes that to the people of Northern Ireland, and certainly to this House—any legal advice he has received from the Crown Solicitor’s Office about how a no-deal Brexit would contravene the agreement.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady, and I know she has been a long-standing campaigner for peace in Northern Ireland. However, I must respectfully say to her that, actually, it is the backstop and the withdrawal agreement itself that undermine the balance  of the Good Friday agreement because, in important matters, they give a greater preponderance to the voice of Dublin in the affairs of Northern Ireland than they do to the UK—the UK having left the EU. That is a simple fact, and I do not think it is widely enough understood. That is one of the reasons the withdrawal agreement itself is in conflict with the Good Friday agreement.
As for the advice the hon. Lady asks about, I have not seen any such advice.

Desmond Swayne: I once took a train to Manchester to negotiate the price and purchase of a Morris Minor, having purchased only a one-way ticket. It was not a sensible negotiating strategy, was it?

Boris Johnson: No, it was not. I do not know what happened to my right hon. Friend and his Morris Minor, but we intend to do a much better deal in Brussels over the next few weeks.

Peter Kyle: The Prime Minister admonishes this House that the EU is looking to see whether we will block Brexit, but he is almost oblivious to the fact that he twice voted against the deal that the EU signed off. Why is it okay for him to vote against it, but not us?

Boris Johnson: I think what everybody in this House wants to do—I hope it is what they want to do—is to bring Brexit to a conclusion and to get this thing done. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deliver Brexit with a deal, the best thing he can do is support the Government tonight and tomorrow.

Rachel Maclean: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to getting us out of the EU on 31 October, for which 62% of my constituents in Redditch voted. Does he agree that the greatest damage to our democracy, in the eyes of the silent majority of our constituents out in the country, is to fail to honour that promise?

Boris Johnson: I could not have put it better myself. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: If a police officer in Tonypandy or Maerdy arrests a suspect, he or she can immediately, and in real time, consult all the EU databases of criminality, which is essential to being able to send criminals to prison. Border officers can also consult those databases when a person hands over their passport. If we leave without a deal, as the former Prime Minister rightly said, there will be no deal on security. How will we make sure that the people are safe if we leave without a deal on 31 October?

Boris Johnson: I have no doubt that we will continue bilateral arrangements with our EU friends to ensure that both of our populations are protected, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to remind the House that we are recruiting another 20,000 police officers to make this country safer and one of the safest in the world.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Statement, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. [Interruption.] I am sorry. We have heard 53 Back Benchers, and we must move on to the next statement.

LEAVING THE EU: PREPARATIONS

Michael Gove: This is the first time I have appeared at the Dispatch Box since I moved on from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the superb team of civil servants at that Department, who do so much to improve the lives of so many across this country.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about preparations for our departure from the European Union. More than three years ago, in the biggest exercise in democracy in our country’s history, the British people voted to leave the EU, but so far this Parliament has failed to honour that instruction. Now, our Prime Minister has made it clear that we must leave by 31 October, and so we must. Trust in this House depends on it and trust in our democracy depends on it.
Of course, this Government are determined to secure our departure with a good deal, one that paves the way for a bright future outside the single market and the customs union, and the response the Prime Minister has received from European leaders shows that they are ready to move—they want a deal, too. And they are moving because the Prime Minister has been clear that matters must be resolved by 31 October. If we drift, the incentive on them to deliver will quickly dissipate, so I hope that my colleagues in the House of Commons will give the Prime Minister the time and the space he needs to pursue the opening he has secured and to get a good deal that we can all support.
But of course we must be prepared for every eventuality; the European Union may not change its position sufficiently before 31 October, and it may be that a deal is not secured. So we must be ready to leave without a deal on 31 October. Leaving without a deal does not mean that talks with our European partners end altogether. In those circumstances, after we depart without a deal in place, we will all want to discuss how we can reach new arrangements on trade and other issues. But while those conversations go on, we must ensure that we are ready for life outside the EU as a third country, trading on World Trade Organisation terms.
There has been extensive speculation about what leaving without a deal might mean for businesses and individuals. Moving to a new set of customs procedures, adjusting to new border checks and dealing with new tariffs all pose significant challenges, and nobody can be blithe or blasé about the challenges we face or the scale of work required. But provided the right preparations are undertaken by government, business and individuals, risks can be mitigated, significant challenges can be met and we can be ready. Leaving without a deal is, of course, not an event whose consequences are unalterable; it is a change for which we can all prepare, and our preparations will determine the impact of the change and help us also to take advantage of the opportunities that exist outside the EU.
We have, of course, to prepare for every eventuality, and that is the function of Operation Yellowhammer. It is an exercise in anticipating what a reasonable worst-case scenario might involve and how we can then mitigate any risks. Operation Yellowhammer assumptions are  not a prediction of what is likely to happen; they are not a base-case scenario or a list of probable outcomes. They are projections of what may happen in a worst-case scenario, and they are designed to help government to take the necessary steps to ensure that we can all be ready in every situation.
Since the new Government were formed, at the end of July, new structures have been put in place to ensure that we can be ready in every situation and that we can accelerate our preparations for exit. Two new Cabinet Committees have been set up—XS and XO—to discuss negotiating strategy and to make operational decisions about exit respectively. XO meets every working day to expedite preparations for exit, and we are in regular contact with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland civil service, and thousands of the best civil servants across the UK are working to ensure the smoothest possible exit.
We have all been helped by the Chancellor’s move to double Brexit funding for this year, announcing an additional £2.1 billion, on top of expenditure already committed. So £6.3 billion in total has been allocated to prepare for life outside the EU. That money is being used to provide practical help to businesses and to individuals.
Guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across our border with the EU is, of course, central to our preparations, and that will require action by business, to adjust to new customs procedures, and intervention by government, to ensure the freest flow of traffic to our ports. That is why Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has announced an additional expenditure of £16 million to train thousands of customs staff, traders and hauliers, so that trade with the EU continues as smoothly as possible. It is also why today we are announcing £20 million more to ensure that traffic can flow freely in Kent and trucks arriving at Dover are ready to carry our exports into the EU.
On business, we have automatically allocated an economic operator registration indicator—EORI—number to 88,000 companies across the UK, and businesses can also register for transitional simplified procedures to delay the submissions of customs declarations and postpone the payments of duties. New transit sites have been built in Kent to smooth the flow of goods into the EU, and we are recruiting 1,000 new staff to help to maintain security and to support flows at the border.
The Government will do all that they can to support businesses to get ready, but many of the steps required to ensure the smooth flow of trade fall to business. We will provide advice, finance and flexibility over how revenue payments may be settled, but it is important that businesses familiarise themselves with the new requirements that exit will involve. That is why we have launched a public information campaign, “Get ready for Brexit”, to give everyone the clear actions that they need to prepare. As well as TV and radio advertising, there is now a straightforward, step-by-step checker tool, available on the Government’s website at gov.uk/brexit, so we can all identify quickly what we may need to do to get ready.
The Government have also acted to provide assurance that business and individuals can have the maximum level of confidence about the future. We have signed continuity agreements with countries, covering more than £90 billion in trade. We have replacement civil nuclear energy trading agreements with Canada, America,  Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have secured aviation agreements with 14 countries, including the US and Canada, and we also have arrangements with the EU on aviation, roads and rail to ensure smooth travel between the UK and European nations. We also have arrangements on education exchanges, social security, fisheries, climate change and a number of other areas. Agreements are in place covering financial services, so that transactions can continue to take place and financial and market stability can be underpinned. Of course, we have a robust legal framework in place: six exit-related Bills that cater for different scenarios have been passed, and the Government have also laid more than 580 EU-exit secondary instruments.
Of course, the Government are determined to ensure that we protect the rights both of UK nationals in the EU and of EU citizens in the UK. I personally want to thank the more than 3 million EU citizens who live and work here for their positive contribution to our society: you are our friends, family and neighbours—we want you to stay and we value your presence. Under the EU settlement scheme, more than 1 million EU citizens have already been granted status. Let me be clear: EU citizens and their family members will continue to be able to work, study and access benefits and services in the UK on the same basis as now after we exit the EU.
The Government will of course do everything in our power to make sure that UK nationals can continue to live in the EU as they do now, but the Government cannot protect the rights of UK nationals unilaterally. We welcome the fact that member states have drafted or enacted legislation to protect the rights of UK nationals; today, we call on member states to go further and fully reciprocate our generous commitment to EU citizens, so that UK nationals can get the certainty they deserve.
There are other decisions that the EU and member states have said they will take that will have an impact on us all if we leave without a deal. The EU’s commitment that we will be subject to its common external tariff in a no-deal scenario will impose new costs, particularly on those who export food to Europe. Indeed, the EU’s current approach to the rules of the single market will, as things stand, require the Republic of Ireland to impose new checks on goods coming from Northern Ireland. For our part, we will do everything that we can to support the Belfast agreement, to ensure the free flow of goods into Northern Ireland and to mitigate the impacts on Northern Ireland, including by providing targeted support for our agriculture sector and for Northern Ireland’s economy.
Although there are risks that we must deal with, there are also opportunities for life outside the EU. We can reform Government procurement rules, get a better deal for taxpayers and forge new trade relationships. We can innovate more energetically in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, develop crops that yield more food and contribute to better environmental outcomes, manage our seas and fisheries in a way that revives coastal communities, and restore our oceans to health. We can introduce an immigration policy that is fairer, more efficient and more humane, improve our border security, deal better with human trafficking and organised crime, open new free ports throughout the country to boost undervalued communities, and support business more flexibly than ever before.
There are undoubted risks and real challenges in leaving without a deal on 31 October, but there are also opportunities and new possibilities for our country outside the EU. It is my job to mitigate those risks, overcome those challenges and enable this country to exploit those opportunities and extend to every citizen those new possibilities. That is why I commend this statement to the House and why I am confident that as a nation our best days lies ahead.

Jon Trickett: This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. He may regard it as a poisoned chalice, but no doubt the Prime Minister thought it appropriate that he took it.
I thank the Minister for his courtesy in providing advance sight of the statement—it was rather vacuous, but we did have a good chance to study it carefully. He makes much of the work that has been carried out by civil servants who have been working under intense pressure preparing businesses, individuals and wider society for Brexit. We acknowledge the very hard work of all those civil servants and thank them for their service, and we welcome the work that the Government are doing in that respect. However, the truth is that £6.3 billion is being spent on Brexit preparations, yet it is too little now, because it is too late. Even if all the preparations had been carried out in time and in a more comprehensive way, the country would still have no idea whether we will leave with a deal or with no deal.
Let me come straight to the point, because there are significant omissions in the Minister’s statement. There is no mention, for example, of medical supplies, but in the past 24 hours serious-minded health leaders have warned that no deal could result directly in medical shortages, affect treatment for UK nationals in Europe and exacerbate the already difficult NHS crisis. It has been reported that the Government are now stockpiling body bags because of concerns that there may be an increase in the mortality rate. Will the Minister assure the House that that is not the case, but if it is, will he explain what he is doing about it?
The statement mentions that 1 million EU citizens have been given settled status. We welcome that, but there are more than 3 million here. The Government’s prevarication over time and their inadequate preparations right from the beginning have caused great anxiety and left millions of people who live here, pay taxes here, have made their lives here and have their children here wondering what their future holds. It is a mark of the slow progress that is being made that the Government still have not resolved the status of UK citizens who are living in Europe, as the Minister said.
The Secretary of State talks about getting businesses ready, yet it is only a few weeks ago that these serious-minded business leaders demanded an independent inquiry into what a no-deal Brexit would consist of, amid accusations that vital information about potential problems was deliberately being held back by the Government—that was from the business community itself.
In the early part of his statement, the Minister made much of trust—trust in this House and trust in democracy—but the truth is that the Government are playing fast and loose both with democracy and with  the House. I say that because of the proposal that the House be prorogued, and because the Prime Minister’s staff are now hinting at a possible cynical general election, which we are ready for. One way or another, the Government are set on closing down the House of Commons for weeks when the country is facing one of the most difficult times in our recent history. If there is an election—this is a very important point—the direction of the country and its relationship with the EU will be hotly debated. We and the country will need full access to all the relevant information. The Minister’s statement conceals more than it reveals, but can he confirm that, during an election period or a prorogation period, whichever it is, civil service preparations for Brexit will continue through the election purdah if necessary? Can he confirm whether, during the purdah, Ministers will continue to provide political guidance to civil servants on Brexit? I give notice now that the Opposition will seek immediate access to the civil service and ask to be kept fully informed, as is the convention, of all the information that the House and the country have been denied about all developments. That request must be responded to the minute the election is called.
Just eight weeks ago, the current Prime Minister told his party and the country that the chances of a no-deal Brexit were a million to one against. Yet this morning, the former Chancellor, who is no longer in his place, stated that no progress has been made and that there are no substantive negotiations going on. Is that true? The two positions cannot be easily reconciled. Either there is progress or there is not. Having heard the Prime Minister in the Chamber just now, it is clear that most people still have no idea.
To most informed observers, however, it appears that the Government’s favoured deal—whatever they say—is no deal, so let us listen to the Minister’s own words from earlier this year. He said:
“Leaving without a deal…would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence. Almost everyone in this debate accepts that.”
He went on to say:
“We didn’t vote to leave without a deal”.
That was from the man who led the whole campaign to leave the European Union. He was for May’s deal and against no deal, but now he is the Minister for no deal. How does he reconcile the progress of his career?
The House must be allowed to see the detailed assessments contained in the Yellowhammer dossier. The truth is that the Minister is hiding it, but why? The media are reporting that the Yellowhammer papers—even the watered-down versions that he is working on—paint such a disastrous picture of the country after no deal that the Government dare not publish them. Yet shockingly, leaked excerpts talk of potential shortages, delays and even protests on the streets.
Is it not a disgrace that the Government intend to close Parliament down for five weeks without allowing the House to scrutinise their detailed preparations for no deal? Members have a right to know what those preparations are, as has the country. After all, it was this Minister who said:
“We are a parliamentary democracy, and”—
listen to this—
“proroguing Parliament in order to try to get no deal through…would be wrong.”
Those were his exact words. But that is precisely what the Government are now trying to do. How can he justify the amount of resources being spent on preparations for no deal without any scrutiny or accountability to this House? It is simply unacceptable.
Under normal purdah rules, the Select Committees looking at Brexit preparations and Yellowhammer could also be suspended, leaving absolutely no scrutiny by Members of the Government’s plans. When it comes to Yellowhammer, the media appear to be better informed than the House, so let me briefly ask the Minister some questions.

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is well in excess of his time, can ask two or three questions, but they need to be in a sentence or two.

Jon Trickett: What assessments has the Minister received about disruption at the ports? What assessments have been made and reported to him about the situation in Ireland? What assessments has he received about the impact of no deal on food prices? All these matters must be addressed by the House, so let him place the documents in the Library so that we all can explore them.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I am also grateful to him for asking me how I reconcile the progress of my career—it is a question my wife asks me every night, so I am grateful to him for repeating it. I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman. We both represent constituencies that voted to leave the European Union, and both of us are impatient to see us do so. When a Brexit delay was suggested in January 2019, he said that it
“sounds like the British establishment doing what it always does, which is ignoring the views of millions of ordinary folk, and that I am not prepared to tolerate.”
Comrades, neither am I, which is why we have to leave on 31 October.
The hon. Gentleman said that civil servants are doing a fantastic job in the preparations, and I join him in paying tribute to them for their work. He asked about medical shortages. Sadly, medical shortages sometimes occur, whether we are in or out of the European Union, as we have seen recently with the hormone replacement therapy shortages, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is doing so much to help counter. But that is a shared issue for all of us. Two thirds of the medical supplies that reach the Republic of Ireland pass through the narrow straits. That is why it is so important that we secure a deal, not only to safeguard our superb NHS, but to help citizens in Ireland, who are our brothers and sisters too.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the EU settled status scheme. He made the point that 1 million people have received the status so far, and he asked about progress. Every day, 15,000 more people are applying. The settled status scheme is working. He is absolutely right that now is the time for our European partners to extend the same generosity to UK citizens as we are extending to EU citizens.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the money being spent. At the beginning of his questions, he said that £6.3 billion was too little, too late, but subsequently at the end of his statement he asked how we can justify  such expenditure. I think that is the fastest U-turn in history, in the course of just six minutes. He also talked about our contemplation of a “cynical” general election. I thought it was the policy of the Opposition—certainly the Leader of the Opposition—to welcome a general election at the earliest possible opportunity. [Interruption.] I see the Leader of the Opposition seeking guidance on this question from Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order. I know the Minister will not want to mislead the House. The Leader of the Opposition was simply alerting me to his experience of visiting Romania, which is somewhat tangential to—indeed, entirely divorced from—the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s ruminations and lucubrations, which we do not need.

Michael Gove: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We all know how much the Leader of the Opposition enjoyed seeing Celtic play in Romania.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) asked me about the extent of our negotiations, and they are extensive; the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister’s sherpa have been visiting every single European capital to ensure that we can advance our negotiations. But one thing is critical: if we are to succeed in these negotiations, we need to get behind the Prime Minister. If the motion before the House is passed tonight and the legislation that it gives effect to is passed tomorrow, we will be allowing the European Union to dictate the length of any extension and to put any conditions it wishes to on that extension. That would totally undermine the Government’s capacity to negotiate in the national interest.
It has been said of some in the past that they sent out the captain to the wicket and broke his bat beforehand. Well, Labour’s approach to negotiations is not just breaking the bat; it is blowing up the whole pavilion. It is no surprise that Labour Members want to sabotage our negotiations, because they also want to sabotage their own negotiations. Labour’s policy on negotiation is to have an infinitely long extension, to negotiate a new deal with Europe, to bring it back to this country, and then to argue that people should vote against that deal and vote to remain. How can we possibly have confidence in the Leader of the Opposition to negotiate in Europe when his own party does not have confidence in him to secure a good deal for the British people?

Damian Green: Those of us who live in east Kent, where the efficient operation of the Dover-Calais route is essential for the smooth running of our entire road network, have a particular reason to wish my right hon. Friend well in his new task, particularly if we end up with the very undesirable outcome of a no-deal Brexit. In that spirit, I welcome the extra £20 million that he has announced today to ensure the increasingly smooth running of the road network, but can he tell the House what arrangements Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has put in place for customs clearance of lorries coming into this country? Specifically, where is that going to happen?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are two aspects to this issue: lorries coming into this country and lorries leaving this country.  When it comes to lorries coming into this country, thanks to the application of transitional simplified procedures, any duty that needs to be paid can be deferred. Of course, we will be prioritising flow over revenue, which means that we will not be imposing new checks, certainly in the first months after any no-deal exit. I agree with my right hon. Friend that a no-deal exit is undesirable. For lorries that are leaving the country, there will be six new transit sites—five in Kent and one in Essex—to ensure that hauliers leaving the UK can take advantage of the common transit convention and its provisions.

Stephen Gethins: May I put on record my thanks to the officials who have been given the impossible task of trying to make sense of this Government’s plans and to do something that they should never have been asked to do when it comes to no deal? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) may laugh, but these officials are working incredibly hard because of the Government’s ineptitude.
Today in Holyrood, we see a tale of two Governments. Today, the Scottish Government have set out their programme for government to tackle a climate emergency, improve public services and introduce a fairer economy. Yet here we debate food shortages, medicine stockpiling, price increases and job losses; the height of Government ambition is hoping that it will not be as bad as the experts tell them it will. The Minister talked about a general election. We would welcome a general election. In fact, I am going to take the unusual step of inviting the Minister to come and campaign in my constituency. I would love him to do that, so that people could ask him why he is putting them out of work, why he is hitting our food and drink industry and why he is hitting our university sector. This is the height of political failure. It was only apt that the Minister quoted Geoffrey Howe earlier, who of course was attacking his own Prime Minister during an ongoing Tory civil war. I notice that nobody is arguing that this is a good idea any more. This is a Government who have no idea what they are doing and making it up as they go along. No wonder they want to duck, dive and dodge any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.
We were warned before that Parliament would need to sit. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Health Secretary that prorogation goes against everything that the men who waded on to those beaches in Normandy fought and died for? The Secretary of State likes to quote others; does he still agree with that?
On food prices, what will the impact be on food banks—on the most vulnerable, already hit by austerity from this disastrous Tory Government? What level of medicine shortages is acceptable to the Government? On the £6.5 billion, from which public services is that to be taken? Finally—I cannot quite believe I am asking this question—does the Secretary of State still believe in the rule of law, and will he accept laws passed by this Parliament?

Michael Gove: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position? May I also say that I am very grateful for his invitation to campaign in his constituency at the next general election? Given that he has a majority of just two, he is a brave as well as a principled man.

Daniel Kawczynski: Tory gain.

Michael Gove: I think my hon. Friend is right. In Crail and Anstruther, as well as in St Andrews, I think people are looking forward to Conservative representation in North East Fife in due course.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a tale of two Governments. Even as the Scottish Government are unveiling their programme today, they are doing so, after 10 years in government, with education standards declining and the number of people in the health service, including doctors, declining—and unfortunately, as the recent “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures show, Scotland, were it an independent country, would have the biggest deficit of any nation in Europe. That is hardly a record of success.
The hon. Gentleman asks about prorogation. Prorogation is necessary before every Queen’s Speech. One can no more be against prorogation in order to ensure a Queen’s Speech than one can be against the functioning of this Parliament, properly constituted.
The hon. Gentleman asks about food prices. Of course food prices fluctuate—some go up and some go down—but the temporary tariff schedule that we have put in place will protect consumers and ensure that in many cases food prices are either stable or drop.
Ultimately, the problem for the hon. Gentleman is that Scottish National party Members may talk about democracy, but we have had two major referendums in this country, both of which they seek to overturn. They want to ignore the vote to stay in the United Kingdom and they want to ignore the vote to leave the European Union. Their policy is take us back into the EU. That would mean abandoning the pound, abandoning coastal communities in Scotland, and once more recognising that the Scottish National party wants separatism and Brussels rule ahead of a strong United Kingdom and the benefits that it brings to the citizens of the whole UK.

Mike Penning: Does the Secretary of State agree that trust—trust in this Parliament and trust in politicians—is the most important thing in any democracy, and that any party that goes out on a manifesto saying that it wants to leave the European Union and does not honour that cannot be trusted ever again in government?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Labour party said on page 24 of its 2017 manifesto that it was committed to leaving the European Union and respecting the referendum result, and the overwhelming majority of Labour Members—not all—voted for article 50, which set this year as the legal default date for departure from the European Union. I absolutely respect the rule of law, and so should the Labour Members who voted to leave the EU.

Tom Brake: There are widespread reports that the Secretary of State is seeking to sanitise the Operation Yellowhammer documents. Can he confirm that any ministerial demand that civil servants water down Operation Yellowhammer would break the ministerial code, that no civil servants risk being disciplined if they refuse to undertake this work, and that they will be covered by whistleblower legislation?

Michael Gove: Of course we want to make sure that any documents we publish accurately reflect the range of possibilities that leaving the European Union might entail. Thousands of pages of information were published in the technical notices that were published by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary. It is also the case that on gov.uk/brexit there is much information about what leaving the European Union would entail. The right hon. Gentleman specifically refers to the Yellowhammer document. The point about the Yellowhammer document is that it is an aid to Ministers in order to ensure that we can deal with the reasonable worst-case scenario. Of course, the assumptions in the Yellowhammer document are arrived at independently by civil servants, and rightly so.

Daniel Kawczynski: The BBC is constantly engaging with Polish diaspora groups in this country to accentuate potential problems over the EU resettlement scheme. Could the Secretary of State give me an assurance of what money has been afforded to ensure that the maximum number of EU citizens are processed as quickly and efficiently as possible in the event of no deal?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is a consistent champion for the rights of Polish people in the UK and elsewhere. The largest single community of EU citizens in our country is comprised of Polish citizens. We were remembering earlier the anniversary of the second world war. We honour the sacrifice of those Polish soldiers, airmen and sailors who fought alongside us for democracy, and it is our moral duty to ensure that Polish citizens in this country are given the opportunity to stay and to enjoy the rights of which we are all proud and for which their forebears fought so proudly.

Catherine McKinnell: A no-deal Brexit, according to Government messaging, is something we can completely prepare for as long as we spend enough money on advertising, while at the same time so crucial and fundamental that it must be kept on the table as part of the negotiations. It cannot be both. Which is it?

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The legal default position is that we leave on 31 October. If the EU will not move and we do not secure a good deal, we need to be prepared for that eventuality. That is the necessary outworking of article 50, for which I think the hon. Lady voted, along with many other colleagues across the House.

Catherine McKinnell: indicated dissent.

Michael Gove: If she did not, I can only apologise. I think a majority of her Labour colleagues did, but I salute her independence of mind on that issue.
The broader point I would make is that, because it is an eventuality for which we have to prepare, it is prudent that we should prepare, but one thing that I think the hon. Lady and I agree on is that it is infinitely preferable that we leave with a deal. That is why we should give the Prime Minister the space and time to negotiate, which is why I hope that she, along with me, will decline to vote for any motion today that would fetter the Prime Minister’s discretion.

Mark Pawsey: Last week I visited a logistics business in my constituency that sends parcels to the Republic of Ireland, and I heard about the concerns of its customers about the need for paperwork. The business has offered to do it and charge for the time spent—about 20 minutes per form—but I understand that many businesses simply will not bother, which will lead to a loss of valuable export sales. Clearly the best thing is to keep the existing arrangements, but what further advice can my right hon. Friend give to my constituent and his customers?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are some specific proposals that help to deal with parcels of a lower value and can facilitate their flow across borders, but I suggest that his constituents contact gov.uk/brexit—the Government Digital Service website—or, indeed, HMRC. If he would care to write to me, I can ensure that all the facilitations and easements available are in place for his constituency’s firms and employees.

Ben Bradshaw: Why should anyone believe Government claims that meaningful talks are taking place in Brussels to avoid no deal when the rest of Europe flatly denies that and the Prime Minister’s own chief of staff has said that that claim is a deliberate sham to run down the clock to a no-deal Brexit?

Michael Gove: I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but if he were to look at the number of air miles clocked up by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and talk to those involved in the negotiations with the Brexit Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s official negotiator, David Frost, he would see that there has been intensive negotiation with our EU partners. It was the case, for example, that the Prime Minister just last week spent five days in France talking to not only Emmanuel Macron but other European leaders in order to ensure that we can leave with a deal.

Andrew Bowie: As 36,000 delegates gather in Aberdeen to discuss and debate the future of the energy industry, can my right hon. Friend confirm that plans will be put in place in the event of no deal to maintain our just-in-time customs model, on which that industry and so many others in Scotland depend?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for the oil and gas sector, which does so much to ensure that the north-east of Scotland is an economic powerhouse. It is the case that we are working intensively with those in the energy sector and elsewhere to ensure that their business models can be robust for the future.

Hilary Benn: It was reported yesterday that analysis done for the Department for Transport in the last fortnight says that in the worst case, the average delay for lorries and freight at Dover would be one and a half days, and in the best case, there would be a wait of two to three hours—either of which would cause chaos. Can the Secretary of State confirm for the House that the Government have received that analysis? What has the freight industry had to say to him about it? It has been warning for some time that they do not think the Government are prepared.

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that representatives of the freight industry have asked us to accelerate preparations for no deal. That is something that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport have done. On Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Calais to talk to Ministers and the president of the regional assembly. Both of them said that they proposed to take a pragmatic approach in order to ensure the maximum flow, and we shall be revisiting those assumptions in the light, not just of those talks, but of the other steps we are taking.

John Stevenson: Farming and the food and drinks manufacturing sector matter to the economy of Carlisle and Cumbria. Clearly, future relations with the EU will also be significant to those industries. Can the Minister confirm that he believes that adequate preparations are being made for the eventuality of a no deal, to ensure that both those industries can function properly?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the sectors that we most need to help and support is of course the haulage sector—this follows on from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—and we are moving at pace in order to meet many of its concerns. However, as I have said at the Dispatch Box today and previously, the sector that faces some of the biggest challenges in the event of a no-deal exit is undoubtedly agriculture, and within agriculture, undoubtedly upland farmers, particularly sheep farmers. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on steps to ensure that if, as we anticipate, a common external tariff is placed on sheepmeat exports, and therefore the price of sheepmeat falls, we can support hill farmers, who do so much for our country by producing high-quality food and safeguarding the environment we love.

Yvette Cooper: I have been contacted by local manufacturers and food producers who are deeply worried about no-deal tariffs. One, an exporter, says that the price of his exports to the EU will go up by 30%, and he called it “manufacturing suicide.” Another is an importer; the price of his imports will go up by 50%. A third told me that they might have to close down altogether. Can the Secretary of State confirm that all his preparations about public information and committees will not mitigate the impact of those no-deal tariffs? What is the total cost to British industry of those no-deal tariffs?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Lady makes a very fair point, actually. The single biggest challenge in a no-deal exit is of course the existence of those tariffs—a requirement of the European Union’s single market rules. The common external tariff, which I just alluded to, is particularly high when it comes to the agricultural sector, and therefore, when it comes to exporting food into the European Union, that is a significant barrier. However, the temporary tariff regime that we are consulting on would ensure that in many cases tariffs were lower, in order to help business and consumers.
On the broader question about attempting to put a figure on the specific costs, that cannot be done in isolation, although I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Lady asks that question.
More broadly, I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the right hon. Lady’s constituents about what we can do, because the Treasury is making money available for companies that are fundamentally viable but may face particular turbulence in the event of no deal, to ensure their survival in the future. I would be more than happy to talk to her about that.

Mary Robinson: Thousands of people in the UK, and in my constituency, are dependent on the chemical industry. Much of that, of course, has been previously governed by regulation in compliance with the EU. As we leave, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with those companies and with Europe about UK REACH and its implementation?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Those who work in the chemicals industry are absolutely vital to the health of our economy. Hitherto, the regulation of chemicals within the European Union has been governed by the operation of the REACH directive. We are replicating that in UK law and we have had extensive discussions and are putting in place steps to ensure that the chemicals industry can continue to manufacture and export as before. It is one of those industries whose business model, as we leave the European Union, necessarily requires Government support in order to ensure its continued health.

Martin Whitfield: Great mention has been made of the freight industry and the importance of guaranteeing the effective flow of goods across the border. Can the Secretary of State explain what has been done since February with regard to the ISPM—international standard for phytosanitary measures—on wood pallets? Two thirds of the pallets in this country do not comply with European Union requirements.

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the nature of wood pallets, and we have been working with the industry in order to ensure that we can mitigate the consequences of that.

Luke Graham: Earlier today, the chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland went on record to say that there are shortages of medical supplies in Scotland due to Brexit. Can my right hon. Friend give assurances that that is not the case, and that the Cabinet Office is engaging directly with the devolved Administration, local government and all Government bodies to ensure that no shortages are caused by Brexit?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. To the anguish of many, but to the joy of some, we have not actually left the European Union yet, so it is hard to see how any shortages could be caused by Brexit. The Department of Health and Social Care and others have worked to ensure that in the event of a no-deal Brexit we can continue to have all the medicines and medical supplies that people need. I will look closely at what the Scottish BMA has said and investigate it, but sometimes—I am sure this is not the case with the Scottish BMA—one or two figures attribute to Brexit responsibility for matters that are absolutely nothing to do with our departure from the European Union.

Chris Leslie: The Minister caused some concern at the weekend about whether the Government would comply with legislation if it were passed and enacted. Can he, without dodging the question, confirm that if the law requires Her Majesty’s Government to request an extension to article 50, they will comply with the law?

Michael Gove: The Government always comply with the law.

Scott Mann: Is the Minister confident that the integrity of our fishing waters can be maintained and enforced regardless of our method of leaving the European Union, and can he give Cornish fishermen an assurance on that point?

Michael Gove: That is a very important point. Steps have been taken, including working with the devolved Administrations, to make sure that we have strong maritime security and that the rights of our fishermen can be respected. We want to work in a co-operative way with other European countries, and indeed with countries outside the European Union such as Norway and the Faroes, to ensure that we can manage stocks sustainably and revive coastal communities.

Ruth George: There have been reports in the newspapers that the reunification of families will cease if we leave the European Union without a deal. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on that, and confirm that all children who are stranded without family in the UK will be able to apply as now, under the Dublin agreement, to be reunited with their families?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question, and I am disturbed by reporting to that effect. The rights of EU citizens in this country, and of course their dependants, will be protected, but if she wants to furnish me with the report to which she refers I will look closely into it and, of course, write to her.

Alex Chalk: It would be infinitely preferable to secure a deal, which is why I and many hon. Members have voted three times to do exactly that. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in any circumstances the security of supply of medicines will be assured, and that those medicines will be flown into the UK if necessary?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes two characteristically acute points. I voted for the withdrawal agreement on every opportunity presented to the House. I had hoped that more colleagues on the Opposition Benches would have done so. I am grateful to those colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have done so, because it will be infinitely preferable if we leave with a deal. However, my hon. Friend is also right that, as well as ensuring the freest possible flow of goods—including medicines—over the short straits, there should be additional capacity, both at sea and in the air, to safeguard citizens in this country.

Philippa Whitford: For the last couple of years, along with the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, I have been raising the  issue of radioisotopes. I was ignored and patronised, and then reassured at the beginning of this year that it was all sorted and that they had been flown in. However, on 23 July a new contract was put out to tender with a closing date last week, which means that it is not sorted at all. Could the Minister possibly explain what is going to happen about radioisotopes on 1 November?

Michael Gove: I would hope that no one would ignore or patronise the hon. Lady, who had a very distinguished record as a physician even before she came into the House. She speaks with great authority on these issues. Unless I misunderstood it, her point refers to the fact that the Department for Transport has issued a new tender for sea freight. I understand that that tender has been well subscribed, and we should have sea freight in place. We will also have air freight in place, as I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to ensure that not just radioisotopes but all medical supplies necessary for the effective functioning of the NHS across the United Kingdom are available. I hope to stay in regular touch with the hon. Lady, because her commitment to the health of our NHS is second to none.

Steve Brine: I thank my right hon. Friend for making time to meet me during the recess and for today’s statement. Returning to the issue of medicine supply, one constituent wrote to me recently asking about her epilepsy medication. She said, “If we can’t get it easily, it will tip my life upside down”. She and I, as her MP, do not need ifs and buts or scare stories; we need hard facts. This is not a “nice to have and we’ll do our best to have in the awful event of a no deal Brexit”. This is absolutely critical. We need categorical assurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that there will not be a shortage of medicine supply in addition to the shortages there are at the moment—I know that as a former Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care—after Brexit.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend was a brilliant Health Minister and he knows that medical supplies have been termed as category 1 goods. As I mentioned earlier, as well as making sure that we have the freest possible flow across the short straits, there is additional maritime freight capacity and air capacity to ensure that vital drugs will be in place. I can therefore reassure him, his constituent and those living with epilepsy who need that medicine that it will be there.

Paul Sweeney: Having previously worked as a supermarket fruit and vegetable assistant, I know how perishable and fragile supply chains are. I was therefore surprised to hear the Minister say on Sunday that a no-deal Brexit would cause no shortage of fresh food. Sure enough, soon afterwards the British Retail Consortium and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said that that, quite simply, was not true. It said:
“it is impossible to mitigate”
as stockpiling is not possible with such perishable produce. Will the Minister therefore accept that his statement on Sunday was inaccurate?

Michael Gove: I express my solidarity with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, worked with fresh fruit and vegetables when I was a food hall porter in the Aberdeen branch of British Home Stores in the 1980s, so I absolutely appreciate how important it is to ensure we have a ready supply of fresh fruit of vegetables and a wide range of them. The British Retail Consortium, with which I have worked, has been working incredibly hard to make sure we have access to the full range of foods we currently enjoy. It is the case that while the price of some commodities may rise, the price of other commodities may fall, but I am absolutely certain that consumers will continue to have a wide choice of quality of fresh foodstuffs in the event of no-deal Brexit.

Bill Grant: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that business leaders and business associations will be listening intently to this afternoon’s debate. They have suffered three years of uncertainty, and endless and pointless Brexit debate. What certainty and reassurance going forward can the Minister give to business leaders who have suffered uncertainty?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that business wants certainty. The best certainty we can give is to make sure we secure a good deal with the European Union, which is why I hope everyone across the House will give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the time and space necessary to secure that good deal on which he has been working so hard.

Luciana Berger: Further to the question we have just heard about food shortages, on Sunday the Minister said that there will be no shortages of fresh food. He has just told us that there will be a wide choice. Does he accept what the British Retail Consortium said, which is that his initial claim was “categorically untrue” and that a no-deal Brexit would be
“the worst of all worlds for our high streets and those who shop there”?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady, like me, wants to avoid a no-deal Brexit if at all possible. The British Retail Consortium, supermarkets and others involved in providing our food have been doing important work to make sure we continue to have a wide choice and a ready supply of the fresh food that we all enjoy.

Desmond Swayne: Earlier in the year, when it appeared momentarily that we might leave without a deal, Mr Barnier announced that there would not, after all, be a hard border and that other arrangements would be relied upon. Where could he have possibly got that idea?

Michael Gove: I think very possibly from some of the wise and thoughtful speeches that have been made by my right hon. Friend.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Gavin Williamson: With permission Mr Speaker, I am delighted to make a statement today confirming the Prime Minister’s weekend announcement. The Government have committed an extra £14 billion to our schools across England over the next three years, ensuring that funding for all schools can rise at least in line with inflation next year. I take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for all the groundwork he did ahead of this settlement.
The funding announcement includes a cash increase, compared with 2019-20, of £2.6 billion to core schools funding next year, with increases of £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23. That is in addition to the £1.5 billion per year that we will continue to provide to fund additional pension costs for teachers over the next three years. The additional investment delivers on the Prime Minister’s pledge to ensure every secondary school will be allocated at least £5,000 per pupil next year, and that every primary school will be allocated at least £3,750, putting primary schools on the path to receiving at least £4,000 per pupil the following year.
We are allocating funding so that every school’s per pupil funding can rise at least in line with inflation and to accelerate gains for areas of the country which have been historically underfunded, with most areas seeing significant gains above inflation. We will ensure that all schools are allocated their gains under the formula in full next year by removing the cap on gains that underfunded schools have seen over the past two years. This underpins our historic reforms to the overall schools funding system, so that a child with the same needs benefits from the same funding, wherever they live in the country.
I can reaffirm our intention to move to a hard national funding formula, where schools’ budgets are set on the basis of a single national formula, as soon as possible. We recognise that this will represent a significant change and we will work closely with local authorities, schools and others to make the transition as smooth as possible. We are determined that no pupil will be held back from reaching their full potential. This additional investment includes over £700 million to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can access the education that is right for them and the education they need. That is an increase of over 11% on the funding available this year.
Since 2010, education standards in this country have been transformed, but we are determined to go further still. On top of this funding investment, we have announced a package of measures that will intensify our efforts to support all schools in delivering consistently high standards to every single pupil in this country. We will begin a consultation to lift the inspection exemption for outstanding schools, so that parents have up-to-date information and reassurance about the education in their child’s school. We will also provide additional funding to allow strong academy trusts to expand, building on the success of the academy programme as a powerful vehicle to deliver excellence and school improvement in every school.  We will increase the level of support available to some of the most challenging schools that require improvement —those that have not been judged good by Ofsted in over a decade—by giving them more support from experienced school leaders so they can deliver for the children that turn to them and expect the very best in their education. To ensure the extra funding for schools delivers better outcomes and improves efficiency, we will continue to expand the school resource management programme, supporting schools in making every single pound count. We will also work closely with Ofsted and others to make sure that parents have the information they need about how schools are utilising their funding.
There are no great schools without great teachers and this settlement underlines our determination to recognise teaching as the high-value, prestigious profession that it is. The £14 billion investment announced last week will ensure that pay can be increased for all teachers. Subject to the school teachers’ review body process, the investment will make it possible to increase teachers starting salaries by up to £6,000, with the aim of reaching a £30,000 starting salary by 2022-23. This would make starting salaries for teachers among the most competitive in the graduate labour market. That sits alongside reforms to ensure that our teachers have the highest-quality training, not only supporting those already in the profession but attracting even more brilliant graduates into the classroom to make a difference to children’s lives. We will make sure that teaching continues to be attractive throughout a teacher’s career, launching a group of ambassador schools to champion flexible working and share good practice.
A key element in supporting our teachers and leaders is to ensure that they have the tools and support to create safe and disciplined school environments. That is why we have made £10 million available to establish national behaviour hubs. The hubs programme will be led by Tom Bennett and will enable schools that have already achieved an excellent behaviour culture to work with other schools that have struggled to drive improvement. In addition to that investment, we will consult on revised behaviour and exclusions guidance to provide clarity and consistency to headteachers on the action that they can take when pupils do not follow rules. It is vital that we ensure that every child succeeds in their school environment and make sure that schools are a safe place for pupils to study.
We will also be investing an extra £400 million in 16-to-19 education. This total includes £190 million to raise the base rate of funding, from £4,000 at present to £4,188 next year. The additional investment is a 7% increase in overall 16-to-19 funding. The total also includes £120 million for colleges and school sixth forms so that they can deliver crucial subjects, such as engineering, that are so vital to our nation’s future. Colleges and further education providers will receive an extra £25 million to deliver T-levels and an extra £10 million through the advanced maths premium.
A new £20 million investment will also help the sector to continue to recruit and retain brilliant teachers and leaders and provide more support to ensure high-quality teaching of T-levels. There will be £35 million more for targeted interventions to support students on level 3— A-level equivalent—courses who failed their GCSE maths and English. Together, this package will ensure that we are building the skills that our country needs to thrive in the future.
I am sure that many in the House will be eager to know what this announcement means for their local area and constituents. When the information is ready, I will write to Members with further details on the impact on schools in their local areas. Now more than ever is the time to invest in the next generation. That is what this party and this Government are doing, making sure that our children get the very best. I commend this statement to the House.

Angela Rayner: Let me welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank him for advance sight of the statement. Of course, we already had some advance sight of it thanks to the norm now being that the press get the information before this House, but unfortunately today’s announcements do not quite live up to their billing. The new Prime Minister said, “I will reverse the education cuts.” Judging from his performance today, he has a tendency to over-promise.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm just how much funding has been cut since 2010 and how many of those cuts are left in place. As welcome as it is that the Government have finally accepted the failures of austerity, they will not fool anyone into thinking that it is over. As teachers and parents start term this week, too many will be in schools that are facing an immediate financial crisis. Will he tell the House why there is nothing for this year and why next year’s funding falls a full £1 billion short of reversing the cuts to school budgets? Is it not the case that this commitment will benefit the most affluent areas while disadvantaged schools get less? The Education Policy Institute found that a pupil eligible for free school meals would receive less than half the funding of their affluent peers. How fair is that? How can the Secretary of State start his tenure by refusing resources for those who need it most? Perhaps it is about starting as they mean to go on—no more nice Conservatives, but the same old nasty party, trying to hoodwink the public.
On teachers’ pay, I am glad that, after six years running of missed recruitment targets, the Government have finally recognised the damage done by austerity, but the devil is in the detail. Will the Secretary of State assure us that this will not be funded by flattening or cutting the pay of more experienced teachers—the very people, I am sure he will agree, we need to keep in the classroom? Will he increase the teachers’ pay grant or will schools have to fund it? Are academies still exempt or does he now accept that national pay must apply to all schools?
Above all, will the Secretary of State reassure us that support staff will not pay the price? The leaked document in the media was rather revealing. It admitted that
“No 10 and…the Treasury… have been keen to…express concerns about the rising number”
of teaching assistants. Let me say that I join parents, teachers, heads and those who care for our children with special educational needs and disabilities—I, too, value teaching assistants—and I declare a direct interest because my son started a mainstream secondary school today. With the help of valued teaching assistants, he was able to do that. The question is: do the Government value them too? Will the Education Secretary promise  us now that he will defend school support staff who do such a vital job? That is all the more important, given the work that they do with children with SEND. He has promised £700 million next year, but that is the shortfall that councils already face. The Local Government Association has put next year’s deficit at £1.2 billion, so will he tell us whether he accepts that estimate and whether there will be any further funding on top of that amount in future years?
The Government have finally admitted that there is a crisis in further education, but we know that the Education Secretary came back from the Treasury with just half of what he thought was needed. Will he confirm that there is less than £200 million for increasing the base rate, little more than a real-terms freeze? Other funding is ring-fenced for certain courses—will he tell us which subjects and how that will be distributed? The Secretary of State has made welcome commitments on teachers’ pension costs, but will those commitments extend to further and higher education? Is there any sign of an increase in pay for further education staff, or will they continue to fall behind teachers in schools?
Why was there not a single penny for adult education? The same goes for early years. The hourly rate for providers has not increased since 2017. Sure Start funding has collapsed and the additional funding for maintained nursery schools runs out at the end of the next financial year. Will that be addressed tomorrow, or have the youngest children been forgotten? It is the same story with this Prime Minister: empty promises, hollow words and numbers so dodgy he would probably put them on the side of a bus. If he thinks he will fool anyone, he better think again.

Gavin Williamson: I thank the hon. Lady for such a kind and warm welcome to me in my new role; it was very generous of her. She raises a number of important points. We are talking about cash and a total settlement—including pensions— for schools that is worth £18.9 billion over three years. That does not even touch upon the Barnett consequentials for the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The issue of 16-to-19 education is one close to my heart, and the hon. Lady was right to highlight the fact that we are delivering an extra half a billion pounds—the £400 million plus £100 million to deal with pension pressures. I think most people would welcome such an announcement. She is right to highlight the important issue of children with special educational needs and making sure they get the right level of support and everything they need in the classroom, which is why, in the next financial year, we will deliver more than £700 million extra for those children. Even Opposition Members should recognise that is a significant increase, and those increases will continue over the following three years.
We have set out a three-year settlement for schools to give them the confidence to plan for and invest in their future. The hon. Lady raises the important issue of teaching assistants. I absolutely agree with her: they are incredibly important. My wife, who is a teaching assistant, tells me repeatedly how important they are, and I would never disagree with my wife.

Lucy Powell: Give her a pay rise, then.

Gavin Williamson: I might have to declare an interest.
I have seen the impact that teaching assistants have had on so many children’s lives. We all know that teachers can transform what a child can achieve in a classroom, and teaching assistants are an important part of that. I hoped the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) would welcome the new £30,000 starting salary for those coming into teaching. It is an important and bold move that shows the value we put on the teaching profession, as we value all those who teach—not just those just joining the profession, but those who have been in it for many years, which is why in my statement I made it clear that part of that money was to ensure they benefit from pay rises as well. As the hon. Lady will know, 85% of the spend of a school is on its workforce, which is why we have ensured such an important and large financial settlement over the next three years.
Let us look at what the Opposition have done. They have opposed every reform that has driven up standards, driven up attainment, driven up the life chances of children in this country. What will they do in the future? They will oppose every reform and change that we introduce to drive up the life chances of children in this country. Even when we bring forward the largest funding announcement for schools in a generation, they do not have the good grace to welcome it.

Robert Halfon: I strongly welcome this spending settlement. We should celebrate it, not denigrate it. It is incredibly important. The Education Select Committee did some work on school funding. My right hon. Friend mentioned the excellent three-year funding settlement. The Department of Health and Social Care has a 10-year strategic plan. Does he not agree that, as we suggested in our report, there should be a 10-year strategic plan for education to give further stability to the education system? Will he also please support more funding for apprenticeships for people from disadvantaged backgrounds?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point—the Education Committee’s report was an important reference point for me when I came into this role—and is right that setting out as long a term education strategy as possible gives the best chance for everyone in the education sector to plan in the best possible way. That is why I was so keen to land a three-year funding deal. We will certainly strive to give as much certainty as possible. He also raises the important point of apprenticeships, especially for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We need to see what more we can do to encourage those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds to take up this brilliant route into work and success, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss in greater detail how we can achieve this as swiftly as possible.

Carol Monaghan: While I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position, I find it extraordinary that he is standing at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State once again.
The announcement of any additional funding for schools is welcome, but there has to be more clarity and detail about the money. Teachers in England have been undervalued and underpaid for far too long, and while the Government’s announcement on teachers’ pay is  positive, far more could be done. In Scotland, the starting salary for teachers is already £26,700, rising to £32,000 after one year, which is £7,000 more than for their counterparts in England. When will the Secretary of State match that level of funding? Moreover, rather than in 2022-23, will he give teachers in England the uplift they deserve now?
Academies in England are not bound by nationally agreed pay scales, and teachers are often paid at far lower levels, so will the Secretary of State now ensure that academy teachers in England are paid at the nationally negotiated pay levels, at a bare minimum? While increased primary funding is welcome—it is rising to £4,000, I think—it is still £1,000 less than the average funding in Scotland. It is simply not good enough. Scotland has the highest rates of positive destinations for young people anywhere in the UK—a sign of the success of Scottish education. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking at good practice in Scotland?
Finally, the impact of a no deal on schools cannot be underestimated. The leaked document from the Department for Education in August outlined that rising food costs could mean free school meals costing £40 million to £85 million more than at present. Will the Secretary of State detail the contingency planning he has done to ensure that schools can provide free school meals?

Gavin Williamson: I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristically warm welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. A lot of people in Scotland will be very interested to know whether the £1.9 billion extra that the Scottish Government will get will go directly to schools, or whether it will go to more pet projects of the SNP. Teachers and parents will be fascinated to know whether the SNP will guarantee that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. A considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I point out to the House that there is important business of various kinds to follow erelong, and there is, as a result, a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike. Moreover, unusually, I cannot guarantee that everybody who wishes to take part in the statement will be able to do so.

David Evennett: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement on education funding. It is really good news. We must ensure that our young people have the skills they need to succeed in our modern economy. Does he agree that investing in further education is the best way to achieve this?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a critical point and the reason we were so keen to secure such a significant increase in funding for the 16-to-19 sector. The FE sector provides us with many opportunities to look at how we can invest more, create more opportunities for young people and ensure that people understand that pursuing a vocational career is just as important as pursuing academic interests.

Layla Moran: The Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the Education Secretary‘s figure of £14 billion extra for schools as
“somewhere between meaningless and misleading.”
It calculates that the real-terms increase will be more like £4.3 billion by 2022-3. That is just enough to reverse the cuts that have been made since 2015, so eight years later schools will, in essence, receive nothing. Given the importance of numeracy to the national curriculum, does the Secretary of State regret not doing his sums properly?

Gavin Williamson: I know that the hon. Lady has long campaigned in the f40 group for changes in school funding, and I thought that my statement might give her an opportunity to welcome the changes that we have implemented, which will benefit her constituents so much. We have been very clear about the amount of money that we are providing: a total of £18.9 billion for schools, of which £4.5 billion will cover pension costs, with the additional half a billion pounds going to 16-to-19 education. We will of course work closely with the Institute for Fiscal Studies in explaining our figures.

William Wragg: Extra money for our schools would ordinarily be welcomed, but I suppose we are in quite unusual times.
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, and thank him for his announcement on behalf of the schools in Stockport, but may I ask him a slightly technical question? Would he consider increasing the minimum per pupil funding block as a proportion of the national funding formula?

Gavin Williamson: We always keep that issue under review, and I will come back to my hon. Friend when we have made further decisions on it. Let me take this opportunity to thank him for being such a doughty campaigner for the schools in his constituency, fighting to ensure that they receive extra funds and continue the brilliant work that they are doing.

Meg Hillier: We need to beware the smoke and mirrors. There has been an 8% cut in per pupil funding, and it will take a while for an inflation-linked increase year on year to catch up with that. The Secretary of State said that Ofsted might have a role in looking into how schools spent the money. Is he giving Ofsted new powers and new funding to enable it to investigate the way in which schools spend their funds, which is currently not its responsibility?

Gavin Williamson: We will update the House in due course on how we will work with Ofsted in that regard, but I think that one of our most important reforms has been ensuring that Ofsted can inspect outstanding schools, because I had picked up some concern among unions, parents and teachers about the fact that a number of schools had not been inspected for a long time.

John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many good schools, such as William de Ferrers School in my constituency, had made heroic efforts to find savings in recent years in order to eliminate budget deficits, and were now, very reluctantly, having to consider increasing class sizes and dropping subjects? May I therefore thank him for recognising the need for extra funds? Will he confirm  that in areas such as mine where substantial development is taking place, these funds will allow pupils who are moving into the constituency to enjoy a good education?

Gavin Williamson: An important element of the funding settlement that we have agreed with the Treasury is a recognition of demographic change that different parts of the country are experiencing, so that we can ensure that enough school places are provided. More than 1 million places have been created in the last nine years, and there is no doubt that more will be needed in the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is invariably the winner of the “biggest smile” competition.

Lucy Powell: I do try, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his post. We in the Education Committee look forward to giving him a good grilling, hopefully fairly soon. I also welcome his announcement, which is long overdue, but may I ask him about the crucial early years and, in particular, about our maintained nursery schools, about which he has said nothing? Their funds will run out very soon, but they are the jewel in the crown of social mobility, and the amount that they need is a tiny fraction of what he has announced today.

Gavin Williamson: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She has raised an important point. I took the opportunity to visit a maintained nursery school in Sheffield to gain a proper understanding of the value that those schools bring and their impact on children in the early years. Obviously my statement concerned school funding for 16 to 19-year-olds, but we constantly keep that issue under review, and I am examining it very closely.

Sarah Newton: I welcome the investment and the package to support schools and further education colleges in Cornwall, but how much will each of our schools and colleges receive over the next three years? The three-year multi-year settlement is very important.

Gavin Williamson: I know that my hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for schools and further education colleges in her constituency. One of the first pieces of correspondence I received was from her, demanding more for Cornwall, as we would expect of her. I shall write to the Members of Parliament who are affected, including my hon. Friend, and explain in detail the impact on the funding settlement in October, when we have finalised the figures. We received the broad settlement from the Treasury only last week.

Nicholas Dakin: The £200 uplift in 16-to-18 funding is welcome—but it is only a start; it is for only one year; and it falls short of the £760 per student for which Raise the Rate campaigners asked. Will the Secretary of State take an early opportunity to put that right?

Gavin Williamson: This is a 4.7% increase. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lecturer, and that he inspired many pupils in the course of his career  before entering the House. I look forward to discussing with him how we make the best possible investment to deliver the best possible outcomes for all those children in further education.

Jeremy Wright: The Secretary of State’s announcement of additional funds is very welcome, but as governors and head teachers need to plan in advance does he agree that what he said about the predictability and understandability of the funding system is almost as significant? Will he ensure that as the system is designed in detail he keeps an eye on ensuring that it stays so?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. I know that he represents a county that has historically faced funding challenges and that he has always campaigned for them to be addressed, and I am pleased to be able to do that. I will take his words very much to heart and ensure that we retain clarity and simplicity, as well as always ensuring that schools have a view as long-term as the funds that they will be receiving.

Stephanie Peacock: We in Barnsley have lost nearly a third of our teaching assistants and school support staff. As a former teacher, I am aware of the vital job that they do, but the Secretary of State did not mention them once in his statement, and, despite his warm words in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), we have still not been given any firm commitments. Will he rule out funding his plans by cutting school support staff further?

Gavin Williamson: We are giving schools the largest funding package in a generation. I know how much all schools value the amazing work that teaching assistants do every single day throughout the year. They have always made that a key part of their investment, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. However, as the hon. Lady may know, I do not determine staffing levels, how schools spend their money, or on which staff they spend that money.

Henry Smith: I welcome the additional school funding announced by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary, which will benefit 17 schools in Crawley, but will my right hon. Friend say a little more about support for children with special educational needs?

Gavin Williamson: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning with many other colleagues who have been affected by historic lower levels of school funding in certain counties, and the result of his campaigning is the settlement that we have announced today. Special educational needs are a vital issue for every school in every part of the country, and it is vital for us to ensure that the level of funding is right. The £700 million that will be provided in the first year will have a direct impact in ensuring that those children have the level of provision and support that is required.

Louise Haigh: Some of the consequences of the chronic underfunding of special educational needs have been a huge rise in the number of exclusions and an increase in the number of parents  forced to home-educate their children because they cannot find school places for them. What measures will the Secretary of State attach to this funding to ensure that there are enough specialist places and enough support in mainstream education to keep children with special educational needs in schools?

Gavin Williamson: It is always vitally important that we do everything we can to support children with special educational needs in mainstream schools, but I would point out that the numbers of exclusions from schools are lower today than they were when there was last a Labour Government.

Andrew Percy: May I begin by congratulating Goole academy on going from being in special measures a few years ago to this year achieving the best results ever in the school’s history?
I know from my time in the classroom that no teacher likes to see a child excluded, but on some occasions it is appropriate, for the child and the wellbeing of other pupils, for children not to be in classroom. Will the Secretary of State therefore turn his attention to ensuring we have better and proper alternative provision for children who cannot be dealt with in mainstream school?

Gavin Williamson: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Goole college on the turnaround it has been able to achieve. I know my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this field, having taught for many years himself, and I will take on board his point, because it is absolutely vital that we ensure that every child in school is able to get the type of education that we want them to get and not be disrupted by others, so ensuring we have the right provision for those children to go to is vital.

Karin Smyth: The question is whether parents have the information they need for utilising school funding. In Bristol South as few as a quarter of primary schools and no secondary schools will receive any of this money, so what is the Secretary of State’s message to the other 75% of schools and their parents?

Gavin Williamson: I can assure the hon. Lady that provision has been made for local authorities to deliver more money for every school in England.

Neil O'Brien: I warmly welcome this huge investment and the decisive action to undo the historically unfair underfunding of areas such as Leicestershire, but if we are to have a hard formula will my right hon. Friend look closely at the position of small schools, on which I led a debate before the summer? Will he look at the lump sum so we that can have not just more funding for our schools but support for small schools too?

Gavin Williamson: Having had the great opportunity to visit Beauchamp college and Saint George’s primary school in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I know that they have been delivering the very best education for the children in Leicestershire, but it is also important to recognise the challenge that small schools face, and we keep that constantly under review.

Paul Farrelly: Special needs education is, we know, in crisis across the country, but in the county the right hon. Gentleman and I share—Staffordshire—there are woeful discrepancies between different areas. In the last academic year, no education, health and care plan was completed within the statutory time limit in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands, compared with 75% elsewhere, while in the Secretary of State’s own area the proportion was only 24%. When is he going to step in and act in the interests of children with special needs in our county?

Gavin Williamson: What we always take with great seriousness is how we can enhance and support all those with special educational needs. I am looking at this very closely, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), the Minister for children, to ensure that children who have that need for support get it as swiftly as possible, and that is why we are delivering an extra £700 million in the next financial year.

Steve Double: As a member of the f40 campaign, may I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and particularly the extra funding for further education? In St Austell we are face particular challenges in maintaining A-level provision, so will the Secretary of State or the appropriate Minister meet me to see how this extra money can be used to secure A-level provision?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend has long campaigned for a better and fairer funding settlement for Cornwall, and it is a great pleasure to be able to deliver that. I would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues in Cornwall regarding how best we can improve A-level provision in Cornwall.

Sarah Jones: We have seen a 53% increase in school exclusions over the last few years—a 53% increase—and half of all those children have special educational needs and are not getting the support. The anger about that is a sign of distress. How on earth is a renewed emphasis on exclusion going to help those children when we need more money spent on special educational needs?

Gavin Williamson: It is absolutely vital to ensure proper discipline in every single school, but it is also vitally important that those children who need the most support have that provided either within their school setting or, if they are excluded, by ensuring proper provision is provided for them outside.

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL)

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

John Bercow: I now call the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. He has up to three minutes in which to make his application.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order.

Peter Bone: rose—

John Bercow: Resume your seat.

Peter Bone: It is about democracy.

John Bercow: Resume your seat. I do not require any lectures in democracy from the hon. Gentleman; I will advise him of precisely what the position is, and it will brook of no contradiction.
First, the hon. Gentleman was rather laggardly and slow in rising when I had already called the right hon. Member for West Dorset—untypically so, I readily acknowledge.
Secondly, I say to the hon. Gentleman, in terms of crystal clarity, that if he wishes to raise a point of order he will of course have an opportunity to do so; I challenge him to identify any occasion upon which I have sought to deny him, and I do not do so. I am simply saying that I will take the application first. There is subsequently a ten-minute rule motion before we proceed to any debate, if there be such. The hon. Gentleman is never knowingly understated or not heard when he wishes to be; I will hear him. Patience, sir; it will be rewarded. I call Sir Oliver Letwin.

Oliver Letwin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can be brief; in the light of the Government’s decision to prorogue Parliament next week it has become an urgent matter for Parliament, and particularly this House, to discuss whether it can accept a no-deal exit. I therefore ask you to grant an urgent debate under Standing Order No. 24.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his application, which is not entirely a matter of surprise either to Members of the House or large numbers of people outside it. I have heard what he said, I am familiar with his rationale, and I am satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman clearly enjoys the support of the House. I will go further; I will be my normal generous self to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in advertising for those who  did not hear it that he was robustly objecting, which he is absolutely entitled to do. People need be in no doubt that there was an objection. In these circumstances, it is necessary for at least 40 Members to rise in their places to support the application. There is a very much larger number than 40 Members rising in support, so the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has obtained the leave of the House.
The debate will be held today as the first item of public business. It will last for up to three hours—that is to say, if it starts before seven o’clock—and it will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the application by the right hon. Gentleman.
We now come to the ten-minute rule motion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough is gesticulating—I will not even say chuntering—in a mildly eccentric manner from a sedentary position, and I am all agog to learn more of what he wishes to raise in his point of order.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was really just a procedural point, and I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 24 on page 33 of the Standing Orders. When a Standing Order No. 24 application is notified on a Tuesday, this has to be done by 10.30 in the morning. I inquired in the Vote Office after 10.30 this morning and was told that no Standing Order No. 24 application had yet been made, although they were expecting one. So it seemed to me that in those circumstances, this application could not be heard today and that it should have been heard tomorrow. That was why I was trying to make my point so early on, so that we did not have to go through with it. That seems very clear.

John Bercow: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s rationale, and I thank him for explaining his agitation to raise his point at an early stage. However, I must advise him—I must admit I thought he would have known this, because he is a keen partisan of parliamentary opportunities for Back Benchers—that the responsibility of a Member seeking to make such an application is to lodge that application with the Speaker. I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the application was lodged with me and my office yesterday evening, so it was well in time. Moreover, I hope that I carry the House with me in observing that, whatever people think of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), his courtesy is unsurpassed by any other Member of this House, and it was partly on account of that courtesy and because he wanted his intentions to be entirely intelligible that he was keen that his motion, if judged orderly, should be published as early as possible. It was published some hours ago. So the hon. Member for Wellingborough has had a good try, but I think that his efforts on this occasion on that point have been exhausted. I would suggest that the courteous thing to do now would be to proceed with the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has been patiently waiting.

CLEAN AIR

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Chris Philp: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about mitigating air pollution, including through the use of low emission zones; to prohibit vehicle idling; to restrict the approval and sale of vehicles with certain engine types; to require local authorities to undertake tree-planting and to take steps to promote the use of electric propulsion systems in buses and taxis; and for connected purposes.
The story of—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. This is most unfair on the hon. Gentleman, who is raising an important matter. May I please appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who are not as keenly attentive to the contents of the ten-minute rule motion as I would like to be to continue their conversations outside the Chamber? It is only fair that the hon. Gentleman, who has booked his slot, should be heard in speaking up for his cause and his constituents.

Chris Philp: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to see so many colleagues attending to hear this ten-minute rule motion this afternoon. I always knew that clean air was a topic that would command widespread interest across the House.
The story of Ella Kissi-Debrah is a tragic one. Ella lived near Lewisham, just 80 feet from the north circular, one of south London’s most congested highways. As a south London MP, I can testify to the notorious congestion and pollution on that road. Ella tragically died of asthma and acute respiratory failure in 2013 after experiencing three years of seizures. Her mother Rosamund believes that pollution caused her daughter’s death. Earlier this year, the Attorney General and the High Court gave permission for a new inquest to formally investigate the link between pollution and Ella’s death. Of course we cannot generalise from one case, but the evidence suggests that Ella’s mum is right about the serious health risks of air pollution, especially nitrous oxides and particulate matter.
In 2016, a report by the Royal College of Physicians found that air pollution cuts short an estimated 40,000 lives a year in the UK, and that the young, the old and those with medical conditions are most at risk. Evidence to a joint Select Committee in 2018 said that air pollution was the second-largest cause of avoidable death after smoking. The Committee also found that health impacts ranged from causing premature births to respiratory and heart disease and dementia. My own twins were born very prematurely at 25 weeks and, reading that Select Committee report, I wondered whether air pollution in London had contributed to their extreme prematurity. The joint Select Committee’s report findings are corroborated by academic studies, including those published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Much progress has been made since 1970, and nitrous oxide and particulate pollution has reduced by about 70%, but the truth is that we must do much more. The Government’s clean air strategy, published in January this year, recognises that. In particular, it recognises the importance of the World Health Organisation limit of  10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM 2.5 particulates, which is much lower than the EU limit of 25 micrograms per cubic metre, but it is an inescapable fact that pollution levels in the UK are too high. As a south London MP, I see that in my own constituency. The A23, which runs through Croydon and includes the Purley Way, is much too polluted, and I am sure many colleagues around the House, particularly those from urban areas, have similar problems in their own constituencies.
The Government’s clean air strategy has many commendable ideas to address this, including action to fund electric vehicle charging roll-out and measures to prohibit the most polluting wood-burning stoves. I see that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) is in his place. However, the clean air strategy needs to be put on a statutory footing, and this Parliament needs to follow previous Parliaments in passing a Clean Air Act, as we did to great effect in 1956, 1968 and 1993.
We also need to go much further than the measures proposed in the clean air strategy. For example, we should be looking at vehicle idling where cars are left stationary with their engines running. The sight of cars parked with their engines running outside schools is a sight that every parent, including me, finds very worrying. Efforts to stop this on a voluntary basis have not worked, and I think that fines similar to parking tickets will be more effective at stopping this behaviour. Trees absorb huge amounts of pollution, so planting more trees in urban areas will help. Specifically, moss walls had been found to be particularly effective in absorbing airborne heavy metals, with each section absorbing emissions equivalent to 42 diesel cars per month.
Speaking of diesel cars, they play an especially damaging role in air pollution. Governments of both colours and the European Union encouraged diesel cars over the last 20 or 30 years because of their lower CO2 emissions, but they emit far more particulates and nitrous oxide emissions than petrol cars, which hugely damages air quality on the streets where those cars are driven. It is worrying that sales of new diesel cars went up from  18% of new car sales in 2001 to a peak of 50% in 2015. This is especially problematic because the real-world emissions of diesel cars are six times higher than the emissions made in laboratory conditions. The Volkswagen scandal underscored the problems, when Volkswagen intentionally cheated the emissions testing regime. It is vital that we hold manufacturers such as Volkswagen to account for the damage they have done to our clean air.
Buses and taxis should be a particular focus, because they are often regulated or operated by local authorities. In London, only 155 buses out of 9,000 are fully electric, whereas in China, every single one of the 16,000 buses in the city of Shenzhen are electric. Even Santiago in Chile has more than twice the number of electric buses that London does. I would like to see all our buses and taxis electrically operated. If we do that, it will cut London’s transport emissions by 20%.
There is a great deal more that a Clean Air Act could do, and it is of vital importance to our nation’s health that we have such an Act. If by some great misfortune this private Member’s Bill does not reach the statute book in the three or four days between now and Prorogation—extraordinary though that sounds—I very much hope that a Clean Air Act will feature in a future Queen’s Speech.
There are many issues that divide this House. I expect that we will hear a great deal of discord and disagreement in the coming hours and days, in which I may well participate, but on this issue of clean air I hope that this House may speak as one. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Philp, James Gray, Gillian Keegan, Mrs Maria Miller, Sir Henry Bellingham, Sarah Newton, Ms Harriet Harman, Ellie Reeves, Mr Steve Reed, Sir Edward Davey, Douglas Chapman and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Chris Philp accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 432).

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL)

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

John Bercow: I remind the House—it is a case of reminding as reference was made to this matter only a few moments ago—that a paper with the terms of the motion has been distributed.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the need to take all necessary steps to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and accordingly makes provision as set out in this order:
(1) On Wednesday 4 September 2019
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this order and call a Member to present the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Wednesday 4 September 2019
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Wednesday 4 September 2019 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00 pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Wednesday 4 September 2019
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords on any future sitting day, the House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (10) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order), any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) If such a message is received on or before the commencement of public business on Monday 9 September and a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message, that message shall be considered before any order of the day or notice of motion which stands on the Order Paper.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted –
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) in paragraph (5), the words “subject to paragraphs (6) and (7)” were omitted.
Reasons Committee
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Miscellaneous
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(15) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(18) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this order apply.
Motion under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019
(19) No motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 prior to Monday 9 September.
Royal Assent
(20) At the sittings on Monday 9 September, Tuesday 10 September and Wednesday 11 September, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.
Proceedings in next Session of Parliament
(21) The provisions of paragraphs (22) and (23) of this order apply to and in connection with proceedings on a Bill in the next Session of the present Parliament if—
(a) the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill has been read the third time in the present Session of Parliament but has not received the Royal Assent;
(b) the Speaker is satisfied that the Bill is in similar terms to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament;
(c) notice of presentation of the Bill is to be given by a designated Member.
(22) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, Standing Order No. 14(11) (which relates to precedence in respect of private Members’ Bills) shall not apply in respect of the Bill in the new Session and notice of presentation of that Bill may be given on the first day of the new Session accordingly.
(23) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, the provisions of paragraphs (1), (3) to (9) and (11) to (18) shall apply to proceedings on and in connection with the Bill in the new Session as they apply to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and any reference in this order to Wednesday 4 September shall apply as if it were a reference to the second day of the new Session.
Interpretation, etc
(24) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the Member in charge of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament; and
(b) any other Member backing the Bill in the present Session of Parliament and acting on behalf of that Member.
(25) This order shall be a Standing Order of the House.
This Motion arises because of four facts. The first fact is that, over the past six weeks, the Government have not produced a single indication of any viable proposal to replace the backstop by any alternative likely to prove acceptable to the EU. The likelihood of the Government reaching a deal at the European Council meeting on 17 and 18 October on the terms that the Government themselves have set is accordingly slight.
The second fact is that this is the last week in which Parliament will have the ability to block a no-deal exit on 31 October, because the Government are proroguing us until 14 October, and they have made it clear that they will fight in the courts any legislation proposed and passed to mandate an extension of the article 50 process. There will not be time after 14 October for Parliament both to legislate and for that legislation to be enforced on a reluctant Government through the courts.
The third fact is that, in the absence of a deal with the EU on the terms that the Government themselves have set and in the absence of an order from the Supreme Court that the Government should apply to extend the article 50 period, the Government will lead our country into a no-deal exit on 31 October. That has been made clear by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions.
The fourth and final fact is that, instead of constituting a threat to the EU that will force them to capitulate and remove the backstop, the Government’s intention or willingness to lead the country into a no-deal exit is a threat to our country. The Prime Minister is much in the position of someone standing on one side of a canyon shouting to people on the other side of the canyon that if they do not do as he wishes, he will throw himself into the abyss. That is not a credible negotiating strategy, and it is also not a responsible strategy, given that the rest of us are to be dragged over the edge with the Prime Minister.

John Baron: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Most of us in this place would prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but does he not understand that, in any negotiation, the chances of a bad deal materially increase if one signals to the other side that one is not prepared to walk away? Does he not see that?

Oliver Letwin: These are difficult matters of judgment, and I respect the judgment that my hon. Friend makes, but it is different from mine. When we were negotiating the coalition between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, which gave rise to a rather good Government, we were sitting around wondering how to conduct those negotiations. We came to the conclusion that actually we should disobey the rules of negotiation that my hon. Friend is describing and offer a bold and imaginative offer to the other side, which was then accepted, and we formed a coalition on the terms on which we wished to form it by mutual accord. That is the way in which I believe these negotiations can proceed. To offer a threat which actually harms us many times  more than those against whom the threat is supposedly levelled is not, as I say, a credible negotiating strategy. I accept that our judgments differ on that, but that is my judgment. It is a matter for the House to decide which of the two judgments is correct.

Crispin Blunt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Letwin: Before I give way, I will say that this will be the last intervention I will take before I move on a bit.

Crispin Blunt: If my right hon. Friend recalls, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on no deal two weeks before we gave notice under article 50, which was unanimously agreed across a Committee wholly split on the merits of the issue, concluded that the damage that would be done by the failure to get an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be greater for the European Union in material terms, but greater for the United Kingdom in proportionate terms. However, the absolute damage being represented on the other side is at stake, so his negotiation—

John Bercow: Order. It is very selfish if an intervention is so long as to prevent other people from getting in.

Oliver Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend that the proportions are different from the absolutes, but I fear that my hon. Friend’s Committee’s report was deficient, in my view, in an important respect. There is a counterbalancing point from the EU’s perspective, and that is that actually demonstrating that it causes great pain proportionately to the country that is doing it is regarded as a significant political, ideological and geopolitical advantage. We have no similar advantage, so the threat to our prosperity and the welfare of our people is the only issue that arises, whereas for the EU there is a positive advantage in a no-deal exit to be balanced against the absolute and proportionately much smaller effect on the member states’ economies. Again, my hon. Friend and I may differ in that judgment, but that is the judgment that we are asking the House to make, and I take the view that I have espoused.
In the light of the four facts—the slender chance of a deal being struck on the Government’s terms; the fact that this is Parliament’s last chance to block a no-deal exit on 31 October; the fact that without a parliamentary block the Government are willing to take us into a no deal; and the fact that prospect of such a disorderly and undemocratic no-deal exit is a threat to our prosperity and our Union, rather than an effective negotiating strategy with the EU—we are putting forward to the House today a motion, the sole purpose of which is to enable the House tomorrow to debate and vote on a Bill in the names of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). If the House votes for this motion tonight, it will give itself the ability to vote for that Bill tomorrow. That Bill will mandate the Prime Minister to seek an extension to 31 January unless he has either got a deal in place at the end of the European Council meeting in October and has got it agreed by Parliament or has got Parliament to agree to a no-deal exit by 19 October.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He said just now that he thinks there is only a very slender chance of a deal—I disagree with him on that point—and also that he wishes to block no deal. If he sees little or no chance of a deal and little or no chance of no deal, what is the point of an extension to 31 January just to do this again and again? Can he not see the damage that would be done to businesses by having this process repeated every three months ad infinitum?

Oliver Letwin: Uncertainty does create difficulty for business. A no-deal exit will create a great deal more difficulty for business, in my judgment.
The purpose of the extension, which will no doubt be debated extensively if this motion is passed and there is a debate on the Bill tomorrow, is very clear. It is to provide the Government with the time to seek to solve this problem and to enable Parliament to help to resolve an issue that has proved very difficult.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Letwin: I am afraid that I will not give way again.
I do not say it is easy to do it by 31 January, but I am sure it will not be done by 31 October. We are between a rock and a hard place, and in this instance the hard place is better than the rock—it is as simple as that. It is decision time. If hon. Members across the House want to prevent a no-deal exit on 31 October, they will have the opportunity to do so if, but only if, they vote for this motion this evening. I hope they will do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: I rise to support the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
During my time in this House every Prime Minister has accepted that there can be honourable disagreements, and I have had many disagreements with each and every one of them. That has led to many votes in this House, which have not always been entered into with certainty on the outcome or on victory, but both sides have always done so safe in the knowledge that this Parliament is sovereign and can act as an effective block on any abuse of power. I therefore urge all MPs on all sides to stand up for what is right and for what they believe in, and to support this cross-party move.

Thelma Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to trust the Prime Minister that a deal is in sight, he should do all he can to show evidence of the progress he has made in the negotiations over the summer and publish the Government’s proposals?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point because, in the six weeks or so since the Prime Minister took office, apparently no proposals have been put to the European Union and there have been no substantive negotiations. He keeps talking about the prospect of progress being made. Well, one would have thought he would have something practical to report to the House by this stage, and, so far, he has not.

James Cartlidge: If a motion for an October general election comes forward before the end of the week, will the right hon. Gentleman vote for it? Yes or no.

Jeremy Corbyn: We are ready for a general election, ready to take on this Government and ready to win a general election to end austerity and poverty across this country, but just look at what we face: a Government determined to subvert the democratic process and to force through a policy that a majority of this House do not support and that has been defeated emphatically twice in this House; a Government who are so determined to continue on their reckless path that they are willing to use every trick in the book and to find every loophole to try to silence this House, and we cannot stand idly by.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think I am correct in saying that, in 2015, the Leader of the Opposition voted for the referendum. Did he mean to abide by the result?

Jeremy Corbyn: Yes, the Labour Opposition did support the referendum and did take part in the referendum campaign. We also made it very clear at the general election that we would not countenance a no-deal exit from the European Union because of the damage it would do. We cannot hope for another opportunity further down the line to stop this Government’s destructive course. There is no more time—they have taken it away—and this may be our last opportunity. Today we must act.

Danielle Rowley: Many constituents and businesses in Midlothian have contacted me, and they are very worried about the grave danger of a no-deal Brexit and the effect it would have. What does my right hon. Friend think about the effect of a no-deal Brexit on our people and businesses across the country?

Jeremy Corbyn: I was with my hon. Friend in Scotland last week, and we heard concerns from many people, particularly those who trade extensively with Europe, about the effect of a no-deal Brexit and the damage it would do to their businesses and the jobs that go with them.

Vicky Ford: The right hon. Gentleman says he wants to avoid a no deal, but he voted against the deal three times. Exactly what changes to the withdrawal agreement would he like to see if he were ever to vote for it?

Jeremy Corbyn: I think I am right in saying that on two occasions I voted alongside the Prime Minister against those deals.
I understand that Members on both sides of the House are under a great deal of pressure in what is, regrettably, an extremely volatile political climate, but if you truly trust in what all the analysis shows—including the Government’s own analysis, as was demonstrated earlier—if you believe in what the experts say and if you understand that a no-deal Brexit will be a disaster for this country, you must act now.
With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have shown the political courage to boldly stand up for what they believe in by bringing this debate to the House. The bullying and the threats to Conservative Members from  their own side is unprecedented, but let me offer some words of encouragement. [Interruption.] It is all right; I am trying to help. Standing by your principles does not always damage your future prospects.

John Baron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I suggest that he should be careful with his selection of evidence? The Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England all made predictions of doom and gloom if we voted to leave in 2016. They said there would be economic disaster by Christmas 2016, and they were all wrong. Since then there has been record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment, in the full knowledge that no deal is better than a bad deal.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The only problem is that it flies in the face of all the facts that are published day in, day out. The value of the pound is falling and manufacturing industry is falling, and I will come on to a number of other industries that are seriously at threat.
I pay tribute to those people across all parties who have come together and continued to work to make a stand against this Government’s reckless and shambolic approach. The Prime Minister says that now is not the time for Parliament to make this stand. He says the chances of a Brexit deal are improving and that the outlines of an agreement are in the making, yet all the evidence points to the contrary. So far, in their six weeks in office, this Government have spent more time trying to avoid scrutiny and trying to silence Parliament than focusing on getting a good deal for this country. With weeks to go until we crash out of the European Union, they have failed to bring forward any new proposals, especially with regard to the Irish backstop.
Even if the Government had worked up new plans or presented a way forward, it seems very unlikely that the EU would agree to the Prime Minister’s red line of scrapping the backstop. As the Attorney General reportedly put it, such a proposition would be a “complete fantasy.” The reality is that no progress has been made in Brussels, nor is there likely to be. This reckless Government only have one plan: to crash out of the EU without a deal, at whatever price to our industry, to people’s jobs and to people’s living standards.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: I have given way many times to Conservative Members, so I will continue.
That is why so many people across this House will stand up to say no to no deal. It has been exposed today, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff called negotiations a “sham” and that the real strategy is to run down the clock. That is why it is incumbent on us, as Members of Parliament, to act today. Voting to block no deal will not kill the positive momentum in Brexit negotiations, because there is no momentum in the Brexit negotiations to kill. What we are asking MPs today to do is to rule out playing Russian roulette with this country’s future, with our industry, our national health service, and people’s jobs and livelihoods all at stake for the Government’s trying to retain power.
Let us not forget what no deal means for this country. No deal will decimate our manufacturing industry. No deal will destroy our agricultural sector.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that the west midlands group of MPs has undertaken lots of consultations. We have another meeting tomorrow with businesses in the west midlands, because they are concerned about the implications of no deal. Does he agree that it is imperative that we get a proper deal to safeguard the millions of jobs up and down the country, particularly those in the west midlands and Coventry?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to say that the west midlands will be particularly hard hit, because so much of its industry relies on just-in-time deliveries from the continent, as well as exports to it, and on a manufacturing process that means that, if any interruption whatsoever happens, there is chaos immediately at the point of production, as well as at the transport system that supplies those places. There has to be some realistic understanding in this House of the implications of a no-deal Brexit for the west midlands, as well as for other parts of this country.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: I have given way many times to many people, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make a wonderful contribution when he gets to make his speech.
No deal threatens peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and threatens our policing and counter-terrorism co-operation with Europe. No deal will mean food shortages and medical shortages, and it will bring chaos to our ports and transport networks. Earlier, we had a Minister at the Dispatch Box proudly telling us that 1,000 more staff have been employed in order to deal with congestion that will be happening at the channel ports. Is that not an indication of the Government’s own admission of what the problems are going to be if we leave with no deal?
Our economy is already fragile—the economy contracted in the last quarter and manufacturing has contracted at the fastest pace for seven years—and no deal would accelerate that decline. As I said, now is not the time to play Russian roulette with our economy. These are not the warnings of some ultra-remain group. These are warnings outlined in the Government’s own assessments and the warnings of leading industry figures. Members do not have to take my word for it. They do not have to listen to me if they do not want to. Instead, they can listen to the likes of Make UK, which represents 20,000 British manufacturing companies and has said that leaving without a deal would be
“the height of economic lunacy”.
They can listen to the National Farmers Union, which has said that no deal would have a “devastating impact” on British food and farming and
“must be avoided at all costs”.
Or they can listen to the British Medical Association, which has made clear:
“The consequences of ‘no deal’ could have potentially catastrophic consequences for patients, the health workforce and services, and the nation’s health.”
We must listen to what every sector of society is telling us regarding the damage of a no-deal Brexit and what it will do to our society and our economy. If we, as a Parliament, do not make this stand today, there may not be another opportunity—it may simply be too late. We must listen to those warnings, If people in this House know better than the BMA, the NFU or Make UK about their own sectors, or know better than the trade unions that represent the people working in those plants and delivery facilities all over the country, they should say so now. I have met trade unionists all over the country in the past few months and spoken to the TUC about this. They are all deeply worried about the continued job losses in manufacturing because of the uncertainty that no deal will bring.
I understand that there will be some concern about the Bill that may follow this debate—some concern from Members across the House that supporting such a Bill would be an attempt to block Brexit or reverse the results of the 2016 referendum. That is not the case; this Bill does not close other options to resolve the Brexit impasse. The Bill is about preventing a damaging no deal, for which this Government have no mandate and for which there is very little public support. The Bill is designed purely to provide vital breathing space in order to find an alternative way through the Brexit mess that this and the previous Government have created.
Today is another historic day in Parliament. It is our chance to seize this last opportunity and to stand up to a bullying Government who have shown themselves ready to dodge scrutiny and silence debate. If we do not act today, we may not get another chance. Whether people voted leave or remain, they did not vote to shut down democracy. The very large number of people who were on the streets last Saturday, from both the leave and remain views, were very concerned about the way in which this Government are trying to shut down debate, shut down democracy and lead us into what I believe would be the problems of a no-deal Brexit. So I urge all MPs today to do what they believe to be right for their constituents—for their jobs, their living standards and their communities—and support the proposal today that we may debate the Bill tomorrow and prevent a no-deal Brexit, with all the damage it would do to our community and to our society.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, brought to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and to follow the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
The Prime Minister has said, including in his statement earlier, that this Government are absolutely committed to delivering Brexit on 31 October. We must deliver the largest democratic mandate in this nation’s history. Delivering the referendum result requires this House to respect the voice of the people as expressed in that historic vote—so far, the House has failed to do so. And now, instead of backing the Prime Minister and giving him the best possible chance of securing a deal before the UK leaves the European Union on 31 October, we find ourselves debating a proposition that seeks to confound the referendum result again. Mr Speaker, I wish to be clear: what is proposed today is constitutionally irregular.

Peter Kyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman remind the House: how many times did he vote against the deal?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The deal is dreadful, which is why the Prime Minister is getting a better one—if only the House would let him. However, this is irregular, both in terms of the approach to allowing SO 24s on substantive motions and in terms of the subversion of Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating.

Sylvia Hermon: The right hon. Gentleman will know the importance of the Good Friday agreement to the people of Northern Ireland. He will also know, as a Unionist, that without a deal there will be an inevitable hardening of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which will incentivise Sinn Féin to agitate for a border poll to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into the Republic of Ireland—into a united Ireland. How on earth could he defend the indefensible?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Because I simply disagree with the hon. Lady—there would have to be a political desire to impose a hard border, and neither the United Kingdom nor the Government of the Republic of Ireland have such a desire.

Neil Gray: I have a certain fondness for the right hon. Gentleman, stemming from our time on the restoration and renewal Committee some years ago. I will tell him what is constitutionally irregular: shutting down Parliament, shutting down debate and shutting down the ability of MPs to hold this Government to account. Can he therefore tell me when he became aware of the Prime Minister’s plan to shut down Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit? Papers in the Court of Session today suggest that this was the Prime Minister’s plan on 16 August.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As Parliament is not being shut down—cannot be shut down—I could not be aware of plans to do something that is not happening, so the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

John Baron: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of Members—colleagues—who will vote against the Government tonight voted to trigger article 50, which said that we would leave the EU with or without a deal. It was very simple and very clear. Which bit does he think they now do not understand?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: They do not like losing referendums and never accepted the result.
I must come back to the constitutional issue, because this motion risks subverting Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating. You in particular, Mr Speaker, have a grave responsibility, of which I know you are well aware, to uphold the norms and conventions that underpin our constitution, but we all have a role to play, and it does considerable damage when some of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce—to hinder rather than to polish—our constitution.

Stephen Doughty: The Leader of the House is talking about the alleged subversion of democracy. He seemed not to answer the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray),  so I ask clearly: first, on what date did the Leader of the House first become aware of the plan to prorogue Parliament? Secondly, have any officials from his office, 10 Downing Street or elsewhere, whether political advisers or civil servants, been conducting communications away from the normal channels, in such a way that would not comply with the terms of candour and disclosure necessary for the court proceedings that are currently taking place?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: If people were carrying out discussions without candour, I would not know about them so would not be able to tell the hon. Gentleman whether they had happened. I carry out all my discussions with candour and—if anybody is interested—the Privy Council’s function is reported in the Court Circular.

Shailesh Vara: Were we to leave the EU on a no-deal basis, in effect that would mean that we would operate on World Trade Organisation rules. Given that the EU currently operates on WTO rules with a number of countries—including the US, China, Russia, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and many others—does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be fearful of trading on WTO rules outside the EU? We already trade on WTO rules in the EU.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a brilliant and incisive point and is absolutely right.
We need to examine what is being put forward to the House and to consider the concerning and odd fact that it is actually being permitted in the first place. Let us look at Standing Order No. 24 and the approach we are taking. As you know, Mr Speaker, I take an interest in the rules of the House.

Kenneth Clarke: I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend agree that we would be perfectly all right to proceed on WTO rules. Does he accept that WTO rules will require the European Union to apply tariffs against our agriculture, fisheries and much of our manufacturing, in line with the tariffs it imposes against other third-party countries, and that WTO rules will require us to have a closed border in Ireland to enforce those restrictions? We cannot have it one way and another: we either obey the WTO rules or we ignore those as well and pretend we are going into some never-never land, but my right hon. Friend cannot simply accept calmly the argument that WTO rules would do no damage to our economy.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I must confess that I am surprised by my right hon. and learned Friend’s astonishment because I have been making the case for WTO rules for some time. It has been a sensible way to proceed and will allow us to carry on trading as we do with many other countries.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend says that the House’s role is one of scrutiny, and I agree, yet does he not see that there is an incompatibility between that scrutiny and in fact taking steps through Prorogation to deprive us of the effective opportunity to carry it out? When considering that, he may also agree with me that so much in this House depends on trust. How can we have trust when there  have already been a number of examples of the Government’s making inaccurate statements, such as, first, that the papers prepared for its Yellowhammer briefing were the product of a previous Administration when they were not; and secondly, and perhaps most pertinently, when it appears that the facts as stated by the Government as to the reasons for Prorogation have turned out to be entirely inaccurate and are now causing the Government considerable difficulties over their duty of candour in litigation? When he aggregates all that together, perhaps my right hon. Friend might begin to understand why many of us have finally decided that this House must take action.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is very learned but his learning does not always lead him in the right direction. The Prorogation is completely routine. When I was first—and, indeed, last—at this Dispatch Box, the Opposition Front Bench was asking for the Session to be brought to an end. We were merely being our obliging selves in leading forth to a new Queen’s Speech in the general course of events.

Chris Bryant: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In due course, because we always like to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who informs and educates us when he speaks—

Chris Bryant: Can I do it now?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No. We are going to have to wait for this informing and educating. We are all bating our breath for it, but I like to keep people on tenterhooks for the time being, because I wish to talk about our old friend “Erskine May”, which sets out your role, Mr Speaker. The chief characteristics attached the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. It would be disorderly, wrong and not my intention to question your impartiality, Mr Speaker, but, as with the umpires at Edgbaston who saw eight of their decisions sent for review and overturned, accepting somebody’s impartiality is not the same as accepting their infallibility.
It is worth noting what a wise and scholarly Speaker once said—indeed, this wise and scholarly Speaker said as recently as last year that a debate held under Standing Order No. 24 could be held on a substantive and amendable motion only if the Standing Order is itself amended. In April 2018, in the light of two emergency debates on the UK’s decision to take military action in Syria, you yourself, Mr Speaker, said that
“it is perfectly open to the House to amend Standing Order No. 24, of which there is some uncertainty and often incomprehension. It could be amended to allow for the tabling of substantive motions in circumstances of emergency, which could also be amendable and on which the House could vote. If there are Members who are interested in that line of inquiry, they could usefully raise it with the Chair of the Procedure Committee”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 475.]
As far as I am aware, no change has been made to Standing Order No. 24, yet the decision has changed—varius et mutabilis semper dictor.

Chris Bryant: The Leader of the House said earlier that Parliament is not being suspended, but in this case it is. He knows perfectly well that Select Committees will not be able to sit and, as according to the Bill of Rights, there will be absolutely no proceedings of Parliament  while Parliament is prorogued. I want Parliament to prorogue, but I want it to prorogue only for four or five days so that we can do our job of scrutinising the Government through proceedings in Parliament. That is the point: we want a Queen’s Speech but we also want to be able to come back and do our job.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House only too well. He knows that we are about to go, in some cases, to the seaside for party conferences—in the case of my party, to a major city centre. That is why we are taking four or five days of parliamentary time and simply going over the normal recess. That is not in any sense an abuse.

Peter Bone: Will the Leader of the House go back to his point about Standing Order No. 24? It seems to me that he is absolutely correct—as Mr Speaker was correct in his previous statement—that this could not be on a substantive motion. If the motion, which appears to be substantive, is carried tonight, it seems to me that the Government would have every right to declare it ultra vires and ignore it.

John Bercow: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not presume to argue with the judgment of the Chair, entitled as he is to the possession and expression of his opinion. What I say to him in order to help him and to assist the Leader of the House is this: if, in the judgment of the Chair, a motion under Standing Order No. 24 is expressed in neutral terms, it will not be open to amendment—if it is judged to be expressed in neutral terms. The reality of the matter is that there have been previous occasions upon which there have been Standing Order No. 24 motion debates which have contained what I would prefer to call evaluative motions, notably on 18 March 2013 and on 11 December 2018 with which I feel sure the Leader of the House is familiar. It is in conformity with that practice that I have operated. I have taken advice of a professional kind, and I am entirely satisfied that the judgment that I have made is consistent with that advice. My attitude is simply to seek to facilitate the House. The Leader of the House rightly referred to my responsibility as grave and solemn, and I completely accept that as well as I accept his right to his own view about my judgment in this matter. I have sought to exercise my judgment in discharging my responsibility to facilitate the House of Commons—to facilitate the Legislature. I have done it, I am doing it, and I will do it to the best of my ability without fear or favour—or, to coin a phrase, come what may, do or die.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful, as always, Mr Speaker, for your contribution to the debate. It is always very useful that your words are referred to and that the House should be reminded of them. It was suggested by you that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee and that the motion should be amended, which it has not been.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is so much to say and so little time, and others want to speak.
This motion is extraordinary in a number of ways.

Joanna Cherry: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will, of course, give way to the hon. and learned Lady.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wonder whether I might go back to the matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). It was revealed in court this morning in a case raised in my name and that of 70 other Members of this House that on 16 August the Prime Minister agreed to a suggestion that Parliament should be prorogued on 9 September, but on 25 August a No. 10 spokesperson said
“the claim that the Government is considering proroguing Parliament in September in order to stop MPs debating Brexit is entirely false.”
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the spokesperson misled MPs and the public on 25 August?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to say that the most obvious understanding of the ordinary use of the English language, which normally the hon. and learned Lady is pretty good at, makes it quite clear that the two statements are entirely compatible. The Prorogation is the normal Prorogation to have a new Session; it is not to stop debate on matters related to the European Union.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is, of course, a pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Angus MacNeil: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He spoke earlier about candour. The need for candour means that he has to accept that, when it comes to WTO, all countries bar about three in the world are in regional trade associations—the three that are not are South Sudan, Somalia and East Timor, and they will probably soon be joined by the UK if we have a hard Brexit. The fact that all these countries, bar three, are in regional trade associations means that they do not exclusively trade on WTO terms. Therefore, when he talks about taking the UK to a place where we exclusively trade on WTO terms, he is talking about moving us away from free trade with 500 million people, making trade more expensive. That is his policy. The other question is this: did he know about the Prorogation on 16 August?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On 16 August, I was at Lords watching a game of cricket, unless it was one of the days when it rained. On the WTO issue, our trade with the United States on WTO terms—I know that the hon. Gentleman is expert in these matters—has grown faster since the creation of the single market than our trade with European Union.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I understand that my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

Oliver Letwin: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I understand his views and his concerns about the supposed constitutional irregularity of these proceedings, and no doubt in the future all these things can be debated. Will he accept that, as a nation, we stand at present at a moment that will have a profound effect on the welfare of our people, that the  sovereign Parliament of this country clearly deserves an opportunity to be able to decide whether it will accept a policy of no-deal exit or not, and that that overwhelmingly matters more than whether the Standing Order No. 24B, which has “where” in it—misdrafted in all probability by the then Leader of the House—has a particular meaning or does not have a particular meaning?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is, I am sorry to say, a stunning arrogance to that view. It fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. [Interruption.] I do indeed dare to say this, and I say it to my right hon. Friend.

John Bercow: Order. I recognise that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House on all aspects of this matter, but the Leader of the House must be heard.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Sovereignty in this House comes from the British people. The idea that we can overrule 17.4 million people is preposterous, and the idea that our rules do not exist to protect the people from arrogant power grabs is mistaken. Those rules are there for the protection of the people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have given way so many times and to many distinguished Members, and it is now time to come on to this extraordinary and unprecedented motion.
Parliament is attempting to set aside Standing Order No. 14 to give precedence to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill. This motion goes further and seeks to claim an unknown and unquantified number of subsequent days for consideration of Lords amendments and messages. It is a fundamental principle that Government are able to transact their business in this House—a principle that this House has long accepted in Standing Order No. 14. This motion also sets aside, in a new parliamentary Session, the Standing Orders that apply in relation to the presentation of private Members’ Bills. The motion would allow a designated Member—or a few of the Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves—to give notice of the presentation of this Bill on the first day of a new Session and then provide time for debate on this Bill on the second day of the new Session, interrupting the Queen’s Speech.
There is an established process for the House debating the Queen’s Speech—a process that this Bill would undermine. Although the Outlawries Bill has its First Reading just before the start of the Queen’s Speech debate, this Bill is only read a First time as a formality and not debated. To interrupt the Queen’s Speech to debate a Back-Bench Bill, such as the one proposed in this motion, would be unprecedented. The Government have an obligation to bring forward their business, and the Queen’s Speech and the debate that follows is one of the great set pieces of the parliamentary calendar, where the Government are rightly scrutinised and held to account, and that is being interrupted.

David Linden: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I give way to the very patient hon. Gentleman.

David Linden: I want to come back to a point made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). He has said quite a lot, as a Brexiteer, that we would be  taking back control of our laws. Can the Leader of the House be crystal clear at the Dispatch Box tonight that if the Bill passes in this House and in the other place, the Government will not stop it getting Royal Assent—if we are taking back control of our laws?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The law will be followed. We are a country that follows the rule of law and this Government assiduously follow constitutional conventions, unlike some other Members of this House.

Bill Cash: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wishes to intervene.

Bill Cash: The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) can only be described as breathtaking. In support of the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it was weighted with great arrogance, may I ask him to be good enough to confirm that in fact the European Union Referendum Bill, as enacted, was a sovereign Act of Parliament, which deliberately gave the right to the British people, and not to the British Parliament, to make the decision on the question of remain or leave?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is of course right. We report to the British people; they are our bosses.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who has been so patient.

Vicky Ford: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Getting back to the bigger picture, the Prime Minister made it very clear in his speech last night and in his statement today that his preferred outcome is to leave with a deal. Can the Leader of the House confirm that that is also his preferred outcome, and that if a deal is agreed at the next European Council sufficient time will be made in this Chamber to ensure that we legislate for that deal?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can say, both personally and as bound by collective responsibility, that I am in favour of a deal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: We must allow other Members to speak. I see that time’s wingèd chariot is speeding away, and therefore I must get on to the separation of powers. [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to carry on all night, I will do my best.
Today’s debate goes to the heart of our constitution and the roles of the Executive and of Parliament. These are matters of careful balance. It is for the Government, by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of this House, to exercise Executive power. That includes the order of business and the bringing forward of legislation. It is for Parliament to scrutinise, to amend, to reject or to approve. Indeed, the scrutiny of the Executive is one of the core functions of Parliament. These complementary and distinctive roles are essential to the functioning of the constitution.
Ministers are of course accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions, and Parliament can make clear its views. It is not, however, for Parliament to undertake the role and functions of the Executive. The constitutional convention is that Executive power is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government, who have a democratic mandate to govern. That mandate is derived from the British people and represented through this House.
Mr Speaker, when we look at this constitution, we see that we are protected by our rules, our orders and our conventions. We will remember from “A Man for All Seasons” that it is those rules, laws and conventions that protect us from the winds of tyranny, and if we take away those protections, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset proposes to do, we lose our protections. It is therefore on the basis of this convention that the Government, not Parliament, are responsible for negotiations with the European Union. Parliament as a whole cannot negotiate for the UK; that is the role of the Government, in exercising Executive power to give effect to the will of the nation.
These roles are fundamental and underpin the country’s uncodified constitution. The Government draw power from Parliament, but the Government may at any time be removed by the tried and tested motion of a confidence debate. The fact is that Parliament has not been willing to go down that route, and the reason is that the Opposition are afraid of that route and run away from it, because they do not dare have the Leader of the Opposition as the Head of Government. They are frightened. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) says that there is time. Let me say, as Leader of the House, that if the Opposition want a motion of confidence, this Government will always obey the constitutional convention and make time for it. But they are afraid—they are white with fear—because they do not want the right hon. Gentleman in No. 10 Downing Street.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the House succeeds in stripping our Prime Minister of the key negotiating card of a no deal, the likelihood of that outcome will be that much accentuated?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it would make the negotiations that much harder.
Let us now turn to the substance of what we are debating. Ostensibly, the purpose of the Bill is to stop no deal. But the Government want a deal. We are willing to sit down with the Commission and EU member states to talk about what needs to be done and to achieve a deal. That must involve the excision of the anti-democratic backstop. The Government have also been clear that we must respect the referendum result and that the UK will be leaving the EU on 31 October, whatever the circumstances. Unless and until the EU agrees to negotiate, we will be leaving with no deal on 31 October.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement earlier today, in which he informed the House of all that is being done to ensure that we are ready for all eventualities. The good boy scouts that we are, we are prepared.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will definitely give way to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle).

Angela Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not realise that, in proroguing Parliament for five weeks—the longest Prorogation, right in the middle of a political crisis, since 1945—he and his Government have deliberately prevented scrutiny that would be legitimate in this House, hence the situation we find ourselves in now? Will he now confirm at the Dispatch Box that if the Bill passes through this House and the other place, he will speed Royal Assent and that his Government will not act against the law?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not wish to be pedantic, but one of the constitutional niceties is that we are Her Majesty’s Government, not mine, and we are led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). The important issue here is that Prorogation is a routine start for a new Session, and we are losing a similar number of days to the number we would lose in a normal Prorogation.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will give way to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), but she is trumped, momentarily, by the Chair of the Brexit Committee.

Hilary Benn: I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. Now that Mr Speaker has made it clear that there is nothing at all irregular about his acceptance of this motion, and given that the Leader of the House accepts, as I presume he does, that the House is in charge of its own procedures, how can there be anything constitutionally irregular in the House choosing—if it passes the motion and then the Bill tomorrow—to instruct the Government that there is an outcome to the Brexit negotiations that it is not prepared to accept, which is leaving without a deal on 31 October?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Gentleman conflates irregular and improper. The motion is unquestionably irregular, even though it is not improper—the two are different concepts, as I am sure he fully understands. It is of course for the House to regulate its own proceedings, but a fundamental principle of our constitution is that the Government command the confidence of the House. [Interruption.] Ah! From a sedentary position an hon. Gentleman says that the Government do not. Now, that is the lock that would undo this constitutional conundrum, because the House dare not say that it has no confidence in the Government—it is frightened of that—and therefore it tries to take away confidence on specifics while maintaining confidence in the generality. That is not a proper constitutional position to be in.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is very difficult to choose to whom to give way, but I did promise the hon. Lady.

Naseem Shah: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has referred many times in his speech to accountability. Within that vein of  accountability, may I ask him a simple question: on what date did he become aware of the Prime Minister’s intention to prorogue Parliament?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have been asked that question, and I understand that there are papers in court. I do not know when I was told that it was happening, although I did have to take a flight out to Aberdeen for a meeting of the Privy Council. Without consulting my diary and my telephone records, I would not wish to say something that was inaccurate.
Let us get back to what is happening here. I was saying that we, being good boy scouts, are well prepared for leaving with or without a deal, and it is absurd for MPs to attempt to bind the Prime Minister’s hands as he seeks to agree a deal that they can support ahead of the European Council.
The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill would make it harder to deliver the two things that the public want from Brexit: certainty and for it to be delivered. The Bill does not do this. It is nothing but legislative legerdemain and a vehicle for extension after extension.

Dr Caroline Johnson: My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham voted overwhelmingly to leave and are very concerned about this proposed Bill, which, as they see it, would block Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding that if the Bill were to pass, the options available would be to the EU, and that those options would be: to agree a largely pointless three-month extension, which would almost certainly be repeated; to offer a deal of the EU’s choice, not negotiated by our Government; or no deal? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not taking back control for this Parliament or this Government, but ceding it entirely to Brussels?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is happening is a deliberate attempt to sow the seed for an extension long enough for a second referendum or simply to stop us leaving at all. It is about denying Brexit, and the fact that the Bill mandates updates on negotiations and motions on those updates on a rolling 28-day basis clearly envisages either a lengthy extension or possibly indefinite vassalage. These seeds could grow into legislation to be introduced on 15 January, 12 February and every 28 days thereafter to command the Government to take specific actions. The aim is to create a marionette Government in which there is only nominal confidence, and it defies the convention in what we are doing today—a convention of great importance, that emergency legislation is passed only when there is a consensus.
Governments less benign than this one may in future learn from this process and ram through any legislation they feel like. Without consensus, those on the Opposition Benches should be very careful about emergency legislation, for they may find they are at the wrong end of it in the future. We should be trying to help the Prime Minister in his chance to negotiate, not trying to bind him hand and foot. Not only do we want to be the vassal state of the European Union; we wish to send the Prime Minister, bound hand and foot, to go and negotiate with the European Union.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Mr Speaker, you will be glad to know that I am drawing gently to a close, and therefore I fear that time for interventions, except from my very old friend, the right hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Chair of the very distinguished Committee that she is the Chair of. [Laughter.]

John Bercow: Send him a note!

Meg Hillier: For once, the right hon. Gentleman has made an error and over-promoted me, but I thank him for his distinctive comments.
There is a serious point here: we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. I take that judgment seriously, as I know do colleagues across the House. The Government do not have not have a majority and we are in uncharted constitutional territory, so it is absolutely right and proper that we exercise our judgment in the interests of the country to avoid, at the very least, a no-deal Brexit. For all the right hon. Gentleman’s talk, we must exercise that judgment, and that is what we are doing. It is entirely responsible.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady, and I must confess that I am astonished that she is not a right hon. Member. Something must have gone wrong with the Privy Council, of which I am now Lord President, for that not to be the case. [Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) feels that he has also not been justly promoted; I am sorry.

Chris Bryant: No, you’ve been unjustly promoted!

John Bercow: Order. I do not think that the Leader of the House was planning to invite the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to join him in Balmoral, so I am not sure that it makes a great deal of difference in the immediate circumstances.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong because there is a routine constitutional procedure to deal with the situation she describes, and that is the vote of confidence. Yes, we are a representative body, but where does our sovereignty come from? Here I am in agreement with the Scots: sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. We hold it in trust for them and they gave us an instruction. If we follow this route, we are left with but three options: we have to accept the deal with its anti-democratic backstop; we have to keep on extending, because Parliament would never accept that we are ready to leave; or we could simply revoke and tell 17.4 million people that they were wrong.
The approach taken today is the most unconstitutional use of this House since the days of Charles Stewart Parnell, when he tried to bung up Parliament. Usurping the Executive’s right is unconstitutional, the abuse of emergency debates to do so is unconstitutional and the Bill itself is yet more unconstitutional. A. V. Dicey said that all conventions have
“one ultimate object, to secure that Parliament or the Cabinet…shall in the long run give effect to the will…of the nation”.
These conventions are being disregarded today, and so, by extension, is the will of the nation. Parliament sets itself against the people. Sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. It does not come to Parliament out of a void. If Parliament tries to challenge the people,  this stretches the elastic of our constitution near to breaking point. We should recognise that the people are our masters and show ourselves to be their lieges and servants, not place ourselves in the position of their overlords. As we come to vote today, I hope that all Members will contemplate the current constitutional confusion and consider the chaos that this concatenation of circumstances could create.

Ian Blackford: It is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the House. I remind him that Lord Cooper in the Court of Session said that parliamentary sovereignty is a purely English concept that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional history. In Scotland the people are sovereign, and that, of course, will be a matter of importance as the people of Scotland decide what their future will be.
I have to say that I am rather surprised by the right hon. Gentleman, who has always been a student of the rights of the House, because the harsh reality is that the reason we are in this situation—that Parliament is to be prorogued—is that the Prime Minister has instructed three stooges to go to Balmoral to give an instruction to the Queen to shut this place down. For all the pronouncements that this is normal, it most certainly is not normal for Parliament to be prorogued for five weeks, and we know that the simple reason is that the Government are running away from the powers and responsibilities that this House has. It is shameful and disgraceful, and in that regard I am deeply honoured and privileged to endorse the motion in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
The Scottish Government have today launched an ambitious programme for government that is aimed at tackling climate change, building a fairer economy, reducing inequality and improving the lives of citizens across Scotland—a Government getting on with their day job, 12 years into government yet still focused on making life better for those in Scotland. But while the Government in Holyrood are stepping up to meet the challenges facing both Scotland and the world, Westminster is quite literally shutting down. It is very much a tale of two Governments. While the Scottish National party is doing everything here and in Edinburgh to move Scotland forward, the threat to our economy and society from the right-wing Brexiteer cabal occupying Downing Street cannot be mitigated. They must—they will—be stopped.
“A sham” is what reports say one of the Prime Minister’s advisers has called his EU negotiation strategy. “Running down the clock” is what the Telegraph is reporting those close to the Prime Minister as saying his strategy is. A “complete fantasy” is how reports say the Attorney General advised the Prime Minister over his approach to the backstop. The tall tales of this Prime Minister are being exposed by the media by the minute. Sources are exposing the smoke and mirrors behind those playing games in No. 10. Does the Prime Minister think this is a game? If so, it is a very, very dangerous game. Make no mistake, the Prime Minister is acting like a dictator—shutting down Parliament, ripping up democracy and silencing the people.

Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman is making some very strong points. Does he agree that if the Government were serious about negotiating and there  were serious negotiations going on, the negotiation team would not have been cut to a quarter of the size that it was under the previous Prime Minister, and there would not be meetings happening where the chief negotiator is saying that the rationale for talking to the Brexit team in the EU is “domestic political” handling?

Ian Blackford: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is a complete sham to say that negotiations are taking place. This is simply a Government who are driving us towards no deal, and Parliament, thankfully, is standing up for its rights.
The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that we in this place have been elected to represent the will of our constituents, and we on the SNP Benches have been elected to serve the people of Scotland—the people of Scotland who have overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union. Yet this Prime Minister, by proroguing Parliament, has decided to ignore the will of the Scottish people, sidelined their interests and silenced their voices. I say to Scottish Conservative Members: do not stab Scotland in the back tonight; stand together with us. For once—for once—stand up for Scotland’s interests. The Prime Minister clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants with Scotland and get away with it. The SNP is here today to tell him that we are not having it.
Since coming to office, the Prime Minister has not given Parliament the opportunity to debate the constitutional crisis facing these islands. Despite Parliament previously ruling out leaving on a no-deal basis, the Prime Minister is pedalling us towards the cliff edge, risking a no-deal Brexit that risks jobs and food and medicine supplies. The population of the United Kingdom is being threatened by this Government.

Angus MacNeil: The first observation I would make about this Government is that it is amazing how much they are in thrall to the date of 31 October given to them by Donald Tusk—the EU date that has now become sacrosanct for Brexiteers. The other thing that strikes me about this Government is that they are looking to have a jingoistic pre-hard-Brexit election, but they fear a post-Brexit election when there are empty shelves and a lack of medicines, because a lack of food on the shelves and a lack of medicines do not election victories make. They will be decimated after they do the damage, so they want to cut and run and see if they can get it over the line before they do the damage.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is correct.
The responsibility of this House is to make sure that we do not have the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit—to protect us from that risk. Yes, we want an election, but we want an election safe in the knowledge that we have protected our citizens from a no-deal Brexit. That is the right thing to do. Let us remind ourselves that the Prime Minister has not been elected by the people; he has been put in power by Conservative party members. He should put himself in front of the people. But let us, in the first case, work together—work collectively—to remove the cliff edge of 31 October.

Patricia Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend recall very clearly, as I do, that on 6 April 2016 we were told by the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, “The day after we vote to leave the EU, we will hold all the cards”? Does that not simply show that this Government are being run by a hopeless, naive group of fantasists?

Ian Blackford: I have to say that it grieves me to see what is taking place, because, in effect, what has happened with the election of the Prime Minister is that the Vote Leave campaign now runs the Government. The harsh reality is that Conservative Back Benchers who are prepared to put our national interests before party interests are going to be forced out of their party. The Tory party has been taken over by a cult, and that does nothing—absolutely nothing—for our democracy.

Chris Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that Scotland would be harmed by no deal, just as my constituents in Nottingham would be harmed by no deal. He is absolutely right to say that this Bill is required as an insurance policy against no deal. Does he also agree that anything that dissolves Parliament before 31 October, whether through Prorogation or a jingoistic election—as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) said—would put our constituents at risk, because there simply is not the time to put all the legislation and preparations in place for that insurance policy before 31 October?

Ian Blackford: The hon. Gentleman is right to signify that we are facing a constitutional crisis.
I applaud Members of Parliament right across this House who have worked together collectively over the course of the past few weeks because we understand the risk to our economy and to our communities. Thank goodness that Members of Parliament have shown that desire to work across the House. We in the SNP have made it clear that we will work with everyone else to make sure that we remove the cliff edge. We have done that consistently ever since 2016. We want an election, but when we can get to the safe landing place where we have no deal taken off the table for 31 October.
But I say—in no way do I mean it as a threat to anyone in this House—that the people of Scotland deserve the right to be able to determine their own future. We cannot allow ourselves to be taken out of the European Union against our will. We have a mandate from the 2016 Scottish elections to deliver a referendum for the people of Scotland. It is absolutely right that the people of my country who want to remain as a European nation should have that choice. The Prime Minister and his Brexiteer cohorts are not going to drive Scotland out of the European Union against their will.

Joan Ryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman, like me, feel somewhat disrespected by the Leader of the House, who disrespected our Speaker and his decisions and everybody who has supported this motion? I am proud to have my name on it and proud to stand with people who are willing to put country before party, country before self. I was not sent here by my constituents to make them poorer or to put their jobs and their healthcare at risk. That is our  overriding priority—we are here to stop a no-deal Brexit. This is not about whether we are remainers or Brexiteers. Many people who voted for Brexit would continue to do so, but not for a no-deal Brexit. There is no majority in the country or in this House for a no-deal Brexit, which is a disaster for the people of this country—of all four nations.

Ian Blackford: The right hon. Lady makes a very passionate case.
We must reflect on what is in the Yellowhammer document. It is not made up. It is not by anybody on this side of the House. It is the Government recognising the risks to the people of the United Kingdom. We have a Government who are telling us that there is a potential risk to food supplies and to medical supplies, particularly for those who need epilepsy drugs. Good grief—contained within the document is talk about a limited risk to water supplies for hundreds of thousands of people. Just think about this: think about a Government who are telling the people of the United Kingdom, “We cannot guarantee that you’re going to have a water supply.” What on earth are we doing?
The nub of this is that it is about ideology. However people voted in the Brexit referendum, they certainly did not vote for this. The Treasury published a document last year showing that a no-deal Brexit could reduce GDP over a 15-year period by something close to 10%. Just dwell on this: we are talking about an impact on the economy that is four times greater than the economic crisis of 2008—the economic crisis that ushered in a decade of austerity. It is the height of irresponsibility for any politician to think that we should be supporting no deal, putting constituents on the dole. Unemployment is never a price worth paying, but this Government are prepared to put the people of the United Kingdom on the dole. We will not sit back and allow that to happen.

Ged Killen: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very passionate case as to why no deal will be such a disaster. Does he agree that we must once and for all dispense with the notion that it is some kind of bargaining chip in these negotiations? Shooting yourself in the foot because you do not get what you want is not a negotiating position.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely correct. It is delusional, and the Government should start telling the truth to people.

Philippa Whitford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we hear from Europe is that there is not actually any proposal on the table from the Government, so there has been no serious negotiation to get a deal, and it is all a fairy tale and a sham?

Ian Blackford: I do not know what the Prime Minister believes, but he was asked several times today by Members in this House to tell us what proposition the Government are making. There is none. It is a sham. This Government are heading us towards the cliff edge of no deal. That is the reality.
The deepening of the democratic deficit under the Prime Minister is despicable. This decision is an outrageous assault on basic democratic principles, and yet the  Prime Minister and his cronies will argue that this is normal. A suspension, he argues, is quite right and proper —what ridiculousness. I know that the Prime Minister has never been one to deal in facts, but let me make it clear for Members. In the last 40 years, Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks. In most cases, it has been prorogued for only a week or less. To try to argue that five weeks is normal is, if we are being polite, disingenuous.
The reason we are here today—the reason why we, for want of a better phrase, are taking back control of the Order Paper on a cross-party basis—is to stop the Prime Minister running down the clock and obstructing the democratic right of MPs to debate, vote and represent the will of the people who sent us to this place. This shameful act from the Prime Minister is because he knows there is no majority here for a no-deal Brexit, because he knows there is no support from the public for a no-deal Brexit and because he knows what we all know: that a no-deal Brexit is catastrophic for the lives of citizens across these islands.
Just in office, the Prime Minister is toying with our democratic processes. Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society, said that it was an “affront to parliamentary democracy”. Why? Because the Prime Minister wants things his own way, and at any cost. The real reason he cannot bear for Parliament to sit and debate is that he knows he does not have the majority to support his disastrous plans to destroy our economy with a no-deal Brexit. What an embarrassment to parliamentary democracy. Well, the Prime Minister cannot stop MPs doing their jobs. We will be heard, and democracy must be respected.
Just last week, I was proud that my party signed a declaration alongside MPs from across the parties in Church House, warning the Government:
“Any attempt to prevent parliament sitting, to force through a no-deal Brexit, will be met by strong and widespread democratic resistance.”
Has the Prime Minister still not listened? Even today, a cross-party group of politicians are in Edinburgh for a full hearing in the Court of Session, attempting to prevent the Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has already called on the Prime Minister to swear on oath his reasons for the Prorogation of Parliament. Will the Prime Minister do so? I think we know the answer to that. We also have a group of experts in constitutional law, human rights and justice arguing in The Times that the recent decision to prorogue Parliament sets a dangerous precedent and, furthermore, is incompatible with Executive accountability to Parliament as prescribed by the constitution.
Has the Prime Minister no shame? This is a blind power grab, showing total arrogance and contempt for the electorate. Instead of giving the people a new Prime Minister who listens to their wishes, he has robbed the people of all power. What does shutting down Parliament on a whim mean for this Prime Minister or a future Prime Minister? For us from Scotland, what protection do we have if any UK Prime Minister sought to shut down the Scottish Parliament? We need to protect our Parliament from this Prime Minister.
It is clear that this House is not supportive of the Prime Minister’s actions. This emergency debate is crucial, as MPs today need to carve a way forward to allow emergency legislation against no deal to be passed. The cross-party Bill seeks to ensure that the UK will not  leave the EU without a deal unless Parliament consents to such an outcome. It will also require the Prime Minister to then extend article 50. That is a crucial step to prevent a catastrophic no deal, to protect our economy and our communities. This is how we can come together to avoid a no-deal Brexit, to protect the interests of citizens across these islands and, fundamentally, to protect not simply the rights of Parliament or parliamentarians but the rights of the people.
The denial of Parliament having its say denies people in Scotland and across the UK their say against a no-deal Brexit. We in the SNP cannot countenance that. I urge Members to unite to stop a no-deal Brexit, to stop this Prime Minister and this dictatorship, and to restore democracy. Tonight, it is our turn to take back control. Tonight, the Prime Minister is going to be stopped in his tracks. The Prime Minister has tried to rob the people of their power. Now it is our time to rob him of his.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. After we have heard from the Father of the House, whom I intend shall speak next, it will be necessary for there to be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, imposed by me in the name of trying to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues in this important debate. I call Mr Kenneth Clarke.

Kenneth Clarke: Mr Speaker, you are very generous to me. I will try to be extremely brief. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has just enabled me to be briefer, because he made the key point in the last few moments of his speech when he talked about what really lies behind this Bill, from the point of view of Parliament and parliamentary democracy.
We all know that we are in the middle of an historic crisis, and we all know that our duty is to take the decision that will be best for future generations and will do least damage to our political standing in the world and to our economy. This horrendous debate which is tearing the country apart is doing great harm to our political institutions, and particularly Parliament. A large number of the population on either side of the European debate are beginning to hold Parliament almost in contempt. Fanatic leavers are convinced that it is wicked MPs who are undermining the people’s will and that we are solely responsible for the appalling deadlock we are in.
I am very glad that, with your help, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friends and others have found this way of enabling Parliament to assert itself, give its view and face the fundamental challenge from a constitutional point of view which will determine the political relationship between Governments of all colours and Parliaments for quite a long time to come.

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: With great respect, I would love to debate with my right hon. Friend, and I often have, but my speech will get longer and longer once I give way. As the Speaker has not put me under the time limit, I will try to avoid giving way, to be fair to others.
The reason for this motion and the underlying reason for the opposition to it is simply that the Government are insisting on pursuing a policy which they know a majority in Parliament is opposed to. There is no precedent for it that I can think of—certainly not in modern times. I have been around for long enough, but 10 years ago, if a Government had attempted to implement a policy which they knew the majority of Parliament were against, it would have created outrage.
Parliament has twice voted against leaving with no deal. This Prime Minister has plainly determined that he has put himself in a position where he has got to have no deal. We have seen the most extraordinary attempts to avoid this House having opportunities to vote on that, to debate it and to play a role in it. If Parliament allows itself to be sidelined, the precedent that we will create for future generations and for the behaviour of future Governments of all complexions vis-à-vis Parliament will be quite horrendous.
We have heard arguments about the importance of limiting these emergency debates. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very good at keeping a straight face when he is coming out with arguments that are almost incredible. The benefits of trading solely within the WTO I will leave on one side. I am sure the North Koreans thrive under that in every conceivable way. [Laughter] I think it is only the North Koreans, the Algerians and perhaps the Serbians who do that. When the Leader of the House says how important it is that this House defends its traditions by making sure that in no circumstances can it ever debate business of its own choice, even in an emergency—and I know that he is a profound parliamentarian and deeply committed to the wellbeing of this place—his ability to keep a straight face is quite remarkable. However, I am being deflected from the serious point I was making.
Prorogation was the final, almost charmingly naive, attempt to make sure that there was not even an opportunity by mistake for something on the Order Paper to enable anybody here to express their opinion. Apparently, it is suddenly frightfully important that the Government’s whole new policy package—which seems to be emerging at an extraordinary rate, in figures anyway—is put before Parliament before the end of October, when we have not really bothered with policy of that kind for a very long time. It is plainly impossible to put it off until the beginning of November!
Most importantly, apparently the reason for the extremely long break is that it is extremely important that we do not distract the public from paying proper attention to the party conferences! [Laughter.] We have to be respectful to the Trades Union Congress; we cannot distract the television sets of the nation from the Liberal assembly; apparently every Conservative MP is dying to go to the Conservative conference. [Laughter.] We know there are people who will have engagements there, but I am sure the pairing system can cope with that. The idea that at the moment of such historic crisis, such momentous decisions, the House can be faced with arguments of that kind, I find quite preposterous and very saddening.
Given that we are being treated in this way, it is quite obvious that the House must seize its own agenda—that is all that this evening’s vote is about—and make the most of the opportunity in the next few days. Then the House can make key decisions on what it will legally require the Government to pursue in the national interest:  most importantly being strongly against just leaving with no deal. I would be amazed if a majority does not emerge, yet again. It is not that anybody really wants that—I think about 20 Members of the House of Commons really think it is a good idea to leave with no deal. It is the right of my party, who have given up and decided to get it over with: “Leave with no deal; it’s all the fault of the Germans, the French and particularly the Commissioners—all the fault of Parliament. Have a quick election, wave a Union Jack and then we will sort out the bumps that will come when we have left.” The House must stop that, and use the opportunity.
Tomorrow we will debate the merits of the arguments. We will go on and on. I am dying to intervene in more of the arguments—I have already spoken in this House more than most on Europe, and we all know where we stand on the leave/remain arguments—but there is one point of real substance that I would like to address tonight, on which I am afraid for the first time ever the Leader of the House was slightly annoying me. He was using what is currently the cliché, extreme right-winger argument, that anybody who wants to stop a no-deal Brexit is actually reversing the referendum. I think we exactly reflect the public; Parliament, in its paralysed confusion, entirely reflects the division of the public, where there is no clear majority for anything, so far, except that we are against leaving with no deal. We cannot get a majority for anything else; everything else has so far been blocked by hard-line right-wing people who do not want any deal with foreigners, and people’s vote people, who will not vote for anything that involves leaving the European Union because they want another referendum. I am afraid they have, so far, outnumbered the middle. I think more of them should join the middle, because I believe, with great reluctance, that the obvious compromise, to bring together both public opinion and this House, is a soft Brexit where we keep the present economic ties.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says that I am just defying 17 million people. Well, I have not defied 17 million people. I have already compromised. I was not in favour of the referendum. I feel very self-justified, looking back on it. I did not vote for it; I made it clear that I was not going to change my lifelong opinions because of one day’s vote on a simple question on the terribly complicated subject of our national destiny. I even voted against invoking article 50; I was guilty of that. Since then, I have accepted that the only way to proceed is a soft Brexit: to leave the political union and stay in those superbly free trade arrangements, which British Conservative Governments took a leading role in creating. I have voted for Brexit three times. If the Bill gets passed, and if we get on to the substance of the thing, I will vote for Brexit again. I have had the privilege of at least once voting alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House in favour of Brexit, on terms which they now treat with derision.
I do not want to listen to conspiracy theories about the Irish backstop. Sadly, I do not think any of the English public take any interest in Irish political affairs; nine out of 10 have no idea what the Irish backstop is. It is an entirely closed little debate—but a very important one, I concede. I am strongly in favour of the Irish backstop unless we could replace it with something that is, equally, absolutely guaranteed to preserve the Good   Friday agreement. At the root, we have to deliver to the people, and I think we could get a broad mass of the public together on something that keeps our economic ties together and attempts—as the EU keeps doing under British leadership—to extend free trade through more and more EU trade agreements, which we took the leading part in pressing for, and which we are now about to walk out of to go back to WTO terms all over again, with South Korea and Mercosur and so on. That must be stopped.
I would like to see a Bill in which we put more positive steers from this House. We all know what we are against—no deal—but we cannot agree on what we are for. I do not think that making it a legal obligation to seek a customs union or to have some regulatory alignment would make the Prime Minister’s position more difficult in Europe; they would just wonder why on earth no British leader had asked for that before. I will leave that until the proceedings on the Bill.
If this Parliament does not pass this motion, it will be looked back upon with total derision. What sort of a Parliament was it, in the middle of this crisis, that said to the Government—this new Government, this populist Government, storming away as it is—“Oh yes, we quite agree with you: we should not be troubled with this. The Executive, as we have just been told, have absolute powers. We are only a debating society, only commenting when we are allowed. Feel free to deliver what you wish by 31 October”? Then we go back to our constituents and say, “It is very important that you have us to represent you in Parliament, to look after your interests, but as it happens we have given unbridled powers to Boris for the next few months on the European question.”
You may gather, Mr Speaker, that I am going to vote for this motion, with more passion than I usually go through the Lobby. It is an extremely important evening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am afraid a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.

Helen Jones: I rise to support the motion not only on behalf of the 1.7 million people who have signed a petition on our website against a Prorogation of Parliament until we have made decisions on Europe, but as someone who is profoundly disturbed by the contempt for parliamentary democracy that the Prime Minister has shown in seeking a five-week Prorogation of Parliament. It is profoundly dangerous to our democracy because, as we all know, democracy never disappears with a bang: it disappears by small, incremental steps, each one justified by saying, “Things need to be sorted out, things need to be done, and people are blocking the way.” I say that as someone who believes that we should implement the decision of the referendum, but in a representative democracy it is for Parliament to decide how that decision should be implemented.
We are struggling to reconcile a plebiscite with a representative democracy. That struggle has not been made any easier by the misleading statements made during the referendum—that we would get the easiest trade deal ever, and so on. Brexit cannot be accomplished,  as the Prime Minister seeks to tell us, by a few slogans from a self-help book and a rousing chorus of “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”. It is complicated, and Parliament has to deal with those complications.
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister sees himself as a democrat. I am told that he keeps a bust of Pericles in Downing Street. I do not know whether he chose Pericles because his foreign policy alienated most of the other Greek states or because he prorogued the Athenian assembly, but although the Prime Minister sees himself as a democrat he speaks like a demagogue. He has called parliamentarians “collaborators” with Europe in seeking to block no deal: he uses the language of a war. There are far too many people here trying to relive a war that they were not only too young to take part in but too young even to remember. That demeans the sacrifices of those who fought in that war.
Our job is to take the difficult decisions, and one of the things that we must do is to block a no-deal Brexit, which would be disastrous for this country and for most of our constituents. It would damage not just this generation but generations to come. Where are all the members of the Cabinet who told us that Prorogation would be an affront to parliamentary democracy, mad or a ridiculous suggestion? They are silent as the grave. If Cabinet Government no longer exists, and it seems not to, it is for Parliament to ensure that the Government are properly scrutinised.
I know that it will be difficult for many on the Government Benches tonight. They have been threatened with the loss of the Whip and of their jobs. Many will have to break the bonds of loyalty to their own party, which we all have, but I beg them tonight to act not in their own interests or those of their party, but in those of the country. They should remember what Clem Attlee once said:
“If you begin to consider yourself solely responsible to a political party, you’re half-way to a dictatorship.”
The country expects us tonight to act in the national interest, and it is vital that we do so.

Bill Cash: I have heard an enormous amount over the last few weeks about the way in which the Government are undermining democracy and our sovereignty. We have just heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) rubbishing a lot of the arguments that the Government have put forward over the last few weeks.
I will simply say this: there are those in this House, however much they like to dress it up—I think I said this on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—who have never accepted the idea that we should leave the European Union, with or without a deal. They just do not want to leave. I understand that, and I actually pay tribute to some of those who have been entirely consistent about these arguments, in particular my right hon. and learned Friend. He knows that I genuinely feel that.
Having said that, I am afraid that I simply cannot accept, under any circumstances, the burden of the argument made by, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).  This House, as I said in an intervention on the Leader of the House, made a decision in the European Union Referendum Act 2015—a sovereign Act of Parliament—that deliberately gave the British people the right to make the decision, not this House. Under the Lisbon treaty, which was enacted in 2008, we also agreed the article 50 process in our domestic law, which provided that, once it had commenced, if there was no decision within two years, we would leave on exit day. That was expressed, ultimately, in the withdrawal Act, section 1 of which said that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 would take place on exit day.
It is impossible, in my judgment, to argue that this debate, all the ripping up of conventions and all the things my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons said, which I entirely agree with, about this improper procedure for the purposes of achieving an objective, can just be washed away on the grounds that, somehow or other, there is an argument about our not having any possibility of leaving without a deal. I simply say this, Mr Speaker, if I may: this is certainly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, a matter of unbelievably important historical significance.
We came into the European Union in 1972 on the basis of a White Paper. I got out that White Paper only today and it clearly states that we will never give up the veto. Furthermore, not only would we never give up the veto—that was the basis on which we entered into the European Communities Act 1972, which is still the governing enactment—but to do so would endanger the very fabric of the Community. That is why so many people across the whole of Europe are voting with their feet against this system. Look at what is going on in Italy, in Greece and in many other countries. So why would anyone want to remain in this European Union? It is autocratic. It is dominated by one country in particular and by the French as well. The bottom line is that it is not a system that allows us to govern ourselves.
I simply say this, Mr Speaker. It is clear that the government that takes place under the Council of Ministers is a system that enables us to be governed by 27 other member states. The withdrawal agreement, which was never signed, would allow us to be kept in that system of vassalage, governed by another 27 member states. It is an unacceptable system. Yet if we were to leave with no deal—albeit, I prefer to have a deal—we would be able to trade globally on our own terms. We would no longer be constrained by the deficit that we run with the European Union. We would be able to govern ourselves and we would also ensure that we retain Northern Ireland as part of our constitutional status.
These are matters that transcend the arguments being pushed around in the House today. These are simple questions of principle. These are the questions that we need to address. We must be allowed, as we did for centuries before we entered the European Community, to govern ourselves. The competences have been so grossly extended that we do not govern ourselves. If we stay in this European Union, we will never be able to do so. I am against this motion. I hope that the House will vote against it.

Nicholas Boles: I rise to support the motion in the name of my friend, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
On the morning of 7 February 2017, I woke up in an isolation room at King’s College Hospital, where I was receiving chemotherapy. My blood counts were rock bottom and the chances of an infection high. Weak as a kitten, I got dressed. My friend and parliamentary neighbour the Brexit Secretary, who was then a Government Whip, met me at the entrance to the ward with a hospital porter and a wheelchair. He took me out to the Chief Whip’s car and we were driven to Parliament so that I could vote for the article 50 Bill.
Since that moment, I have done everything in my power to deliver Brexit with a deal that protects jobs and livelihoods, and preserves our national unity and our international standing. I voted for the former Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement on three separate occasions, while the current Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House were all breaking the Conservative Whip and voting with the Leader of the Opposition. I worked with colleagues across the House to promote an alternative Brexit deal, common market 2.0, and secured the support of Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru for a plan that would have taken us out of the European Union’s political arrangements, but kept us in the single market. I am ready to vote for a revised withdrawal agreement if the Prime Minister can secure changes through a negotiation with the EU. Like many hon. Members from the Labour Benches and elsewhere in this House, I still believe that we need to deliver what a majority of my constituents and of the British people voted for in the referendum of 2016.
What I will not do is allow a no-deal Brexit. It would devastate sheep farmers in my constituency. It would be a hammer blow for automotive businesses in my constituency and across the country. It would put our Union with Scotland and Northern Ireland in jeopardy, and it would be the single most protectionist step taken by any democratic country since the great depression, raising tariffs and trade barriers between us and our largest market.
Taking this stand cost me the support of my local party and in April led me to leave the Conservative party, but I have no regrets. I can look people in the eye, knowing that I have done what I believe to be right and put the interests of the country before my own comfort or career. How many members of the Cabinet can say the same?
At the moment, I am the only independent progressive Conservative in Parliament. To those brave souls on the Conservative Benches who face expulsion from the party for voting for the motion today, I say this: your country needs you. Do what you know to be right. Join me on these Benches and together let us build a new force in British politics, and a true home in Parliament for those who believe in one nation.

Liam Fox: I commend you for ensuring that new Back Benchers are able to take part in the debate at such an early stage, Mr Speaker.
I echo the objections raised by the Leader of the House on constitutional grounds to this motion. I believe that denying the Executive the right to uniquely institute legislation is fraught with danger. Many of the debates and some of the changes that we have seen in Parliament in recent times show the fragility of a system  that is based on convention. Whether we want them to or not, they are propelling us down the route towards a written constitution, which is something that none of us should want to do without taking due care and attention.
However, my main objection is political. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who is no longer in her place, raised the tension that we have effectively between a public who voted to leave the European Union and a Parliament which—let us face it—if it had its way freely, would want to remain in the EU. I do not doubt for a moment the legal legitimacy of a sovereign Parliament to make laws as it sees fit. What I doubt is the moral legitimacy of a Parliament that called a referendum, promised to honour the result of it and then, three years later, still has not done so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said that we have all made different judgments. Some have voted for a deal, unenthusiastically —I number myself among those who had strong reservations but felt that it was the best way to move forward. Some have voted against the deal because they want no deal to be the outcome. Some have voted against it because they want there to be no Brexit at all, and I want to address one or two questions to that latter group, because this is about the political reputation of Parliament.
Those who have had a premeditated campaign to try to thwart the Brexit result, hiding behind the arguments that it is just the deal that they are opposed to, do themselves, Parliament and politics no credit at all. That position is worsened if they stood at the general election on a manifesto that explicitly said that they would honour the result of the referendum, but they had absolutely no intention of doing so. That will result in the contempt of voters. I look forward to the moment when those Members who have taken that path meet their voters at the next general election, whenever that comes.
I am concerned about where this places us in EU negotiations. To be successful in a negotiation, both sides have to regard it as providing mutual self-interest. This does not do that. This process will cast us in the role of supplicants, not taking control back to this House, but giving it to the EU negotiators. That is not in our national interest. We in this political bubble often argue about process and the minutiae and fail to see the big picture, which is what our voters are looking at. We did not ask for an opinion from voters; we asked for an instruction. We said we would honour it, and we are honour bound to do so. I urge colleagues not to cast their vote tonight with the coalition of chaos—for that will be the result: delay will follow delay. It is time, one way or another, to deliver Brexit.
I make one further point. One of our senior French colleagues said to me, “Liam, you need to leave the EU following your referendum”. That was a senior pro-European politician. He said, “The problems of political fragmentation in France began when we did not honour the result of the referendum on the European constitution. It was the beginning of the end of the major parties and the beginning of the rise of the political fringe”. I fear that, if we go down the path suggested tonight, we will open up a chasm of distrust between Parliament and the British people, and that will play only into the hands of the political fringes, which is something we will all come to regret.

Anna Soubry: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), but at a time when our country should be coming together to find a way through this terrible crisis—the biggest since the second world war—it is no longer acceptable to continue to seek to divide. We have to bring people back together, and we will not do that by imputing to people views and motives that are simply not true.
I do not think that my dear friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and I disagree on anything, except Brexit. As he has rightly pointed out, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) also pointed out—I do not mean this in a derogatory sense—they are of course Brexiteers. On three occasions, as they perfectly properly say, they have voted for us to leave the EU. The reason I did not join them in the Lobby—I take grave exception to this suggestion—is not that I wanted to stop Brexit. That will upset many millions of people in this country, some of whom have come on people’s vote marches and rallies because they want us to stop Brexit, but I have always taken the view that it is not my role, having voted for the referendum, for triggering article 50 and for the withdrawal agreement, to stop Brexit. I would have voted for the former Prime Minister’s deal had we agreed to send it back to the British people, who I believe are entitled to have the final say, now that we know what Brexit looks like.
I have to chide the right hon. Member for North Somerset. The reason that so many people of my view are so fed up is that right hon. and hon. Members such as him said that this would be the easiest deal this country had ever done—in fact the easiest in the history of all deals. That is what we were told. In fact the withdrawal agreement was anything but a deal. It was a blind Brexit. That is why so many of us did not vote for it—we did not get the deal we were promised. The second reason we did not vote for it—certainly in my case, but I suspect in the case of most who chose not to vote for the former Prime Minister’s deal—is that on the Government’s own assessments it would have made my constituents poorer. It would have reduced the economic prospects of my constituents, including, most importantly, young people, who will bear the brunt of Brexit. I did not come to this place positively to vote in the full knowledge that it would make my constituents’ jobs less valuable—that it would make them risky. I make no bones about this: I am quite happy and willing to lose my job, but I am damned if I am going to see the jobs of my constituents, and the life chances of their children and grandchildren, reduced.
The final thing that I would say is this. I do not want to repeat all the excellent words about why no deal is so bad for our country: bad for jobs, bad for peace and trade in Northern Ireland, bad for our economy. I just want to pay tribute to dear friends with whom I sat on those Benches as a member of the Conservative party.
Today marks a very bleak and, I believe, momentous day for the Conservative party. What you are seeing, Mr Speaker, is a group of fine parliamentarians, excellent Members of Parliament, who have been bullied and blackmailed, in contrast to some members of the Cabinet with long histories of defying three-line whips. Notwithstanding that, this bunch of honourable people,  most of whom—most of the Conservatives who signed this motion; I have checked the list—have voted three times for Brexit, have found themselves today in the most disgraceful of situations. They have been bullied and blackmailed, and have put their political careers to an end to do the right thing by our country.
As I think was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, this is about our country, but it is also about our self-respect. It is about whether we can look ourselves in the mirror in the morning and not be ashamed of what looks back at us. That moment when our children, and grandchildren, ask us, “How on earth did you stand by and let this disaster of a no deal happen?”, we, at least, will say that we did the right thing: we put our country, and not our careers, first.

Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I also listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) had to say. He made an important point, which has come up again, about the will of the people.
It is absolutely right that most of us in the House voted to trigger article 50. We did so out of respect for the result of the referendum, even if we did not like it. Three and a half years down the track, however, it is perfectly obvious to many of us that this country is going towards a very bad outcome. The longer the period that passes since the referendum, the more unclear it is, in truth, what the will of the people is. We have no idea. While I have always been willing to see a deal go through, I want it to go back to the public, because I am left with a compelling sense that we are actually taking people to a destination that they do not want at all.
Unfortunately, a section of my party has become hijacked by a narrow sector of those who voted to leave, and who are simply using the will of the people as an instrument of potential tyranny against any of those who disagree with them. That is clear to me from the stream of emails that I routinely receive. I am afraid that it has now been fuelled by the words of the Prime Minister, and, indeed—I regret to have to say this, but I will—by the words of the Leader of the House today.
It was fascinating to listen to the Leader of the House. I had always imagined that he had marketed himself in politics as an individual who formed part of the grandest tradition of old-fashioned Conservatism, so I was rather surprised when I heard him say that one of his objections to why the House should do its duty was that it would interfere with the great set pieces that followed a state opening of Parliament. Of course, as a Conservative, I love the great set pieces of our constitution, but I do not think that, at a time of national emergency, my constituents in Beaconsfield would have much regard for me if I said that those great set pieces must come before my doing my duty.
I must also say to the Leader of the House, with regret—it was the first time that I had heard him speak at the Dispatch Box—that I regretted his rather cheap sarcasm at the expense of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Let me gently point out that he has more months of experience of high office than my right hon. Friend has days in his job. The truth is that the Government have decided to  pursue a ruthless policy of trying to shut down all debate—debate of the most legitimate kind about the future of our country and its wellbeing—and in doing so the unconstitutional acts come wholly from the Government. I disagree totally with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he says that in some way this House is acting unconstitutionally in what it does: our constitution is adaptable, and I am afraid it is having to adapt to the reality that the Government do not have a majority and have not had one for some time. And that is just one of those things that happens, and it is doing it, actually, in a fairly reasonable fashion, although it would be better if we listened politely to each other and stopped trying to beat each other over their head, as I detect is the practice the Government are now adopting.
Finally, I say this. Obviously I believe that this motion is entirely desirable and entirely in keeping with the House’s proper traditions, and is something that should be passed, and the Bill that follows it, so that the evils of a no-deal Brexit are avoided, because I believe passionately that evil will follow. But I was struck that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suddenly referred to “A Man for All Seasons”, I think because Sir Thomas More is one of his heroes. He will recollect that Sir Thomas said, when told that opposition to the King would mean death, “Well, these are but devices to frighten children.” So I am afraid that if he thinks the device of withdrawing the Whip this evening is going to change my mind or that of my hon. and right hon. Friends, he has got another thing coming, because it will be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The time limit is now reduced to four minutes.

Tommy Sheppard: I and my party have been consistent over the last four years in voting against this country leaving the European Union. We do that for many reasons, but most of all because that is what the people who elected us to speak for them in this place want: Scotland did not vote for this and Scotland does not want this. But we have never in these debates suggested that the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum should be ignored, set aside or overturned by this Parliament. What we have said is that it is the legitimate and proper role of an elected Parliament to consider the consequences of this course of action, and if in our judgment we believe those consequences to be sufficiently dire, we should allow the opportunity the people of the country to reconsider the decision they took in 2016, in full knowledge of the facts we now have available.
What is at risk now is the right of this Parliament to exercise that degree of judgment. It is a shame in many ways that we have to move this motion tonight and we have to pass emergency legislation tomorrow. It ought to be the other way around: a Government, particularly a minority Government, ought to be coming to this Chamber trying to find consensus, trying to explain themselves and trying to get us behind them, but that is not happening. The reason why so many people find it necessary to do what we are going to do tonight is  simply that we have lost faith in this Government. Not only have the Government today lost their majority, but they have also lost the trust of this House. We do not believe the Prime Minister when he says he is trying to get a deal—we see no evidence of that whatsoever—and we do not believe the Prime Minister when he says he respects parliamentary democracy, because he is trying to shut down the ability of this House to debate his actions and their consequences.

Luke Graham: The hon. Gentleman is talking about compromise; we had an opportunity to compromise back in spring in a vote on the customs union, and we lost by only three votes. Where were the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleagues then? Given the SNP policy on the single market and customs union, we could have had a compromise and avoided this; this is not about time, it is about compromise—show us you are willing to do it.

Tommy Sheppard: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the seeds of the problem were sown long before that. They were sown when a right-wing Conservative Government decided to seize on the result of the referendum and use that narrow majority and interpret it for their own ends to restructure the country and its international relationships and its economy. Even now, we see a situation in which the Government are committed to pursuing the hardest of Brexits, crashing out without a deal if they deem it necessary, and even believing that that is the preferred course of action. They know that there is no majority for that course of action not only in this House but in the country.
That brings me to the topic of the election, which is an associated matter. There have been suggestions that if we pass this legislation, the Prime Minister will immediately throw his toys out of the pram, go to the country and demand a general election. We have already had an echo from the Leader of the House of the gross populism that may well come to be reflected in that campaign—something that does his character no great service, to be honest. But if that election is going to come, let us be quite clear that we need to have it before this country crashes of the European Union without a deal. We are ready for election: bring it on! But we must either have it before 31 October or extend that deadline so that we can make a decision as a people and elect a Parliament before this fait accompli is presented to them.
That would be the legitimate thing to do, and I say to the Prime Minister that if he really wants to have an election, he should not engage in these procedural shenanigans and this duplicity in trying to game Parliament. He should put the proposal for a no-deal Brexit to the electorate and explain the consequences, and see if that is what they vote for. When that happens, I will relish the prospect of contesting that election, because we shall not only be contesting that election in order to stop Brexit and have a reconsideration of that strategy; we shall also be explaining to the people of Scotland that this is their chance to consider having a different course of action from the one laid down by the current Prime Minister. I am confident that when we go to the people of Scotland, many more than ever before will now understand the attractiveness of having political independence over their own affairs and of being able to control their own destiny and establish their own   relationships with the rest of the countries in Britain, Europe and the world. That is what is coming down the track, and I warn the Government to be aware of it.

Bernard Jenkin: I put it to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that the very question that he wants to put to the British people again is the question that was on the ballot paper in the 2016 referendum. The then Prime Minister made it clear in debates on television that if the country voted to leave, that decision would be implemented: article 50 would be invoked and after two years we would be out—out of the single market and out of the customs union. That is what he said, so I do not see any need to run the thing again.
I merely rise on the occasion of this debate to observe that what some people, including you, Mr Speaker, call a “constitutional outrage”—it is a little novel for the Speaker to enter into the debate quite so openly, but there we are; that is another novelty taking place in our constitution—other people refer to as a perfectly normal decision.
In truth it is neither, but this controversy reflects the evolving and changing nature of the relationship between Parliament, Government and people. That is a permanent evolution in our constitution, and two measures in particular have led to a substantial sea change in the relationship between Parliament and Government. The first is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was sold to a perhaps rather unsuspecting House as a means of limiting Executive power, but in the event of a statutory no-confidence vote the Act is silent on what happens afterwards, except for the 14-day period. The Prime Minister may no longer be able to call a general election, but he is no longer obliged to resign either—at least not for 14 days. That has the effect of strengthening the incumbency of a sitting Prime Minister. Of course, that is exactly what it was intended to do—it was intended to cement the coalition in place—but it has left the House with the option to wound rather than kill Governments. I do not think that that has improved the accountability of Governments to Parliament in any way at all.
The second thing that has happened to cause this sea change is the increase in the frequency of the use of referendums. That has consequences too, as many warned, not for the sovereignty of Parliament but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, for legitimacy, because we now have competing legitimacies in our constitution. What we are hearing is a bitter dispute about whether the representative nature of our democracy is a superior legitimacy to the direct—

Antoinette Sandbach: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I will.

Antoinette Sandbach: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Vote Leave campaign said that MPs in this Parliament would decide which Brexit model—Norway, Switzerland or so on—would apply and that that was   part of taking back control? The 17.4 million people were not speaking with a single voice, because they believed that there was a menu of options.

Bernard Jenkin: I think there was also a menu of options available to those who voted remain, and I know many people who voted remain who wish that we would now just get on and leave. I do not think the hon. Lady makes a valid point or, indeed, undermines the fundamental point that we now have a constitution in which there are competing legitimacies. Some people are resting the authority of their argument on the representative mandate and some—the Government in particular—on the popular vote.
It is at least as much a constitutional outrage that we are still in the European Union three years after the referendum, and that tomorrow’s potential Bill should propose to hand the question of how we leave not back to this House, but to the European Union to decide—[Interruption.] It is absolutely true, because that is exactly what clause 3(2) of the draft Bill says.
The bitterness of tonight’s exchanges reflects the breakdown of our shared understanding about which mandate is legitimate: the representative or the direct. We now have a constitution containing competing ideas of legitimacy, and unless we are to abandon referendums this House should be ready to implement popular decisions that it does not like, but it has shown some reluctance to do so. If we refuse to do so, I again agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that that will have consequences for the credibility of Parliament in the eyes of our electors. We will see the revival of alternative political parties, and I fear that this House is taking politics in that direction. The sovereignty of Parliament is not risk, but our democratic legitimacy certainly is.

Gordon Marsden: So, it has come to this tonight: the new Prime Minister and his Ministers have had not just their competence, but their good faith so destroyed across the House that this radical but necessary step to preserve parliamentary democracy and our futures has been taken. Anyone who heard either the Leader of the House or, indeed, the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rattled away at a merry pace will recall the old words:
“The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons.”
The truth of the matter is that no deal would drive the NHS into the arms of Donald Trump. No deal would be no good for the people in my constituency who are now experiencing unemployment at twice the national average. No deal would be no good for the people with the desperate medical issues that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about earlier.
The list of warnings about a no-deal Brexit grows longer. Warnings about the supply and prices of fresh food, essential medicines, and chaos on the roads and at ports after Halloween come not from Marxists, Trotskyists, or left-wingers, but from such radical organisations as the British Retail Consortium and the Road Haulage Association.
This is no longer just about Brexit or even whether people voted leave or remain; it is about the United Kingdom’s future as a progressive democracy. We really must take that into account, but we also have to take into account the situation of individual constituents. A man wrote to me and said:
“My father is rather ill these days and relies on a variety of medication. I am concerned what the impact of a no-deal Brexit would have on the supply of this medication.”
We have heard from those who have no axe to grind that that is absolutely the case.
I have had a letter, as many of us will have had, from an ordinary constituent:
“Please can you help with a no deal Brexit as having our NHS is as important to us as food on our plates. It’s hard to survive as it is…I cut back on food and power, have no holidays”.
“Please sort this out.” That is an ordinary constituent who is engaged not with the finer constitutional points that the Leader of the House manages to trim on a sixpence, but with the everyday bread and butter of daily living in a town like many others in the north of England where people feel left behind and vulnerable, and where to satisfy the interests of a small group of cronies around the Prime Minister this Government are trying to stamp down on everything that is said.
There is no evidence, not even a sniff, of the Government having presented any proposals to the EU. The Prime Minister fancies himself a classicist. Well, what he has been doing and the way in which he has treated his own Back Benchers is in the tradition of the proscriptions of ancient Rome.
The Prime Minister also fancies himself an admirer of Churchill. He should remember that Churchill told us that the first duty of a Member is to do what he thinks, in his faithful and disinterested judgment to the honour and safety of this Britain. That is what patriotism, real patriotism, is about, and the way in which this Prime Minister has disgracefully used the Prorogation process blunts the interests of this House and of the British people.
They are not the attributes of a British Prime Minister. I would say they are the attributes of a tinpot despot or autocrat, except this Prime Minister might think it flattered him. No, he is a petulant man-child who is unable to get his way with this House, which is why he is trying to shut down debate through Prorogation. That is why we should support this motion tonight.

Antoinette Sandbach: This Parliament is at the very heart of our national story and our shared history, and it is what the Prime Minister’s great idol, Winston Churchill, called the “cockpit of the nation.” To seek to bar the door to that cockpit as the nation flies into one of the biggest constitutional storms in its history is an unsettling thing for a Government to do. It may not be illegal or unconstitutional, but it is not how a strong, responsible Government would conduct themselves.
Europhobic conspiracy theorists occasionally claim that the EU wants to reduce the House of Commons to a mere council chamber. I am afraid that if the Government achieve their aims this week, they will have gone further  and reduced us from a proud sovereign Parliament to a mere debating club to be dismissed when it becomes inconvenient.
If the Government succeed this week, what is to stop the Prime Minister doing it again in the future? What is to stop the Leader of the Opposition, should he come to power, and I hope that never comes to pass? Precedent matters, and so does motive. The Government’s claim that Prorogation is to enable them to put forward new domestic legislation is clearly nonsense—a fig leaf to hide their attempt to evade accountability.
This House has stood as the defender of our liberties for centuries. The historian Robert Saunders put it best:
“the UK government shines with borrowed light: a light that comes *solely* from the consent of our elected representatives. Shut that down, and our democracy is plunged into darkness.”
It has indeed been plunged into darkness. We are in darkness.
It is claimed that this Prorogation is a normal Prorogation, but it is not. This Parliament would have expected the Leader of the House to table a recess motion, which would have asked us to agree to the party conference recess. That motion has never been put to us. As Members of Parliament, we have never been asked to agree to the recess, and it is highly likely that we would not have done so given the scale of the crisis that faces our country.
The Leader of the House claims to speak for 17.4 million people. Well, I want to tell him about a constituent of mine. I was on the train, going back to my constituency, when a constituent approached me and said, “You’re my MP. I voted for leave, because I wanted to give David Cameron a kicking. I did not really think it would go through. Please, now, do something to change that.”
I have voted three times for the withdrawal agreement. Three times I have seen Members from my party vote that agreement down, even though their Conservative Prime Minister told them that it complied with our manifesto commitment to an orderly exit. A constituent has written to me this evening to say, “The Leader of the House has rebelled against a Conservative-led Government more than 100 times and he has been rewarded with a place on the Front Bench.” Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), who has never voted against the Government, is going to be expelled from the party. What times we live in. I will be voting for this motion.

Kate Hoey: I will not support this motion, just as I did not support the motion the last time Parliament tried to change the way we work constitutionally. We were told then that it was a one-off, but we are now in our second or third one-off. If this goes through tonight, we will be debating a Bill tomorrow. If we look at it in detail—I know we will have that debate tomorrow—we will see that it makes it clear that it will give even more power to the European Union over how long we should have any kind of extension.
I know this is only a rumour but there is usually some truth in rumours, so I was concerned to hear today that some of the people who drafted this motion for the Bill took advice from EU lawyers. If that happened, it is shocking. I know there will be people in this House who  think that there is nothing wrong with that, as they want to be as close as possible to the EU and there is nothing wrong in taking advice from it, but I believe that if this motion is passed tonight the Bill tomorrow will humiliate this Parliament.
We heard a lot about constitutional outrage when the announcement was made about the Queen’s Speech. Four or five extra days have been added to a recess that we all knew about just before the House got up. If people had felt strongly about this, they could have acted and got that discussion then. I genuinely believe that those four or five extra days are much less of a constitutional outrage than what we are setting a precedent for today, which would take away powers from Government. Our side will be in government one day—perhaps a general election is coming; we will be in that same position, and people should be careful. What we are saying today to people is, “What is the point of voting?” They voted to leave and leave won. As many people have said, there was nothing on the ballot paper that said, “We did not vote with a no-deal.” But there was also nothing on that ballot paper that said we wanted to be half in or half out, that we wanted to pay £39 billion or that we wanted to do all those things that were in the withdrawal agreement. We voted to leave. People voted to leave. I know that many people who will vote in this House tonight are remainers who have accepted the result, but the reality is that many colleagues, particularly on my side, actually want to stop Brexit. They see now using “no deal” as almost being synonymous with stopping Brexit—that is the real truth about what is going on.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has been honest from the beginning. He is not in his seat now but he talked tonight about “tearing the country apart”. What on earth is another extension going to do, other than tear the country apart even more? What on earth are we going to gain by another extension that we have not already been able to achieve in the past two and a half years? What will this actually achieve?
If we vote for the motion tonight, we will send a signal to all those people who voted to leave that we know best—that we are being arrogant and that we know best about how the future outside the European Union will work. That is going to come home and hit right through, particularly to my party, but to the Conservative party as well, when we get a general election. Any Labour party Member who did not vote for a general election would look absolutely ridiculous. Bring on an election and let the people show what they really want.

Robert Courts: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
I rise to oppose the motion, and shall do so by considering what it sets out to achieve. The motion does not prevent no deal; it simply requires the Prime Minister, if a deal is not agreed, to ask for an extension and to accept it. That does not avoid no deal; it simply pushes further away the point at which we in this House have to make a decision. The people we represent are expecting us to make a decision. It is what we are here for. It is what they are crying out for us to do. I say to Members  of all parties: we cannot legislate no deal away; we can only vote for a deal or revoke article 50. If revocation is what is sought—I know that some Members would favour that—let us have that debate and say so. Those who voted as part of the overwhelming majority for the referendum and to trigger article 50 can then explain why they have changed their minds. The question of revocation was tested in the indicative votes and heavily defeated. I venture to say that there is no majority for revocation in the House, so all that this procedure seeks to do is to delay—to kick the can further down the road in the hope that something will turn up.
In essence, no plan is proposed in the motion. By contrast, the Government are pursuing a strategy based on the only thing that has commanded a majority in this House: the Brady amendment on alternative arrangements to replace the backstop. It will be said that the EU has no intention of doing replacing it, but the EU is watching and waiting to see what we do here. It has no incentive to move for as long as it thinks that Parliament will destroy the Government’s negotiating position or cancel Brexit altogether. If we in this House declare in advance that we must come to an agreement, the Government’s negotiating position is destroyed and the EU will never have an incentive to move. Rather than banishing no deal, then, this whole scheme makes it impossible to achieve one, and in so doing puts off the day of reckoning even further. But that day cannot be avoided forever.
There is only one way to avoid no deal and to achieve a deal, and paradoxically that is to be ready and willing to leave without one. Only if we are clear about that does the Prime Minister stand a chance. I accept that that readiness causes disquiet among so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight, but I urge all those friends who, like me, want to see a deal, to come with us and give the Prime Minister the unequivocal backing that he needs, because that is the only path to the deal that we all want to see. To vote against the Government tonight is not to vote against no deal; to vote against the Government tonight is to vote against even the possibility of a deal—against the chance of a deal and even the glimmer of a deal. The motion and the Bill it foreshadows achieve nothing more than a delay, which in turn achieves nothing more than to sow more division and discord—the division and discord that is doing such damage to our country’s social fabric.

Caroline Lucas: I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion, which would enable us to pass a Bill tomorrow to prevent our crashing out of the EU with no deal at the end of October.
Let us remember why we are at this point. This discussion is happening now because the Prime Minister is running scared of democracy. The Prime Minister knows that his reckless no-deal Brexit will never get the support of this House, but instead of his having the courage to make his case here and put himself up to scrutiny, Parliament is going to be suspended—brushed aside as an inconvenience to an Executive who are, frankly, lurching out of control.
I am proud that so many brave colleagues inside this House and so many of the public outside it are saying so loudly and clearly that they will not stand for this Prime Minister’s blatant power grab, that they will not  stand for a no-deal Brexit being rammed through this House and that they will stand up to make sure that this legislature does what it is meant to do, which is to hold this Executive—this feral, out-of-control Executive—to account.
There has been a lot of talk about democracy tonight. [Interruption.] I have to say that the body language of the Leader of the House this evening has been so contemptuous of this House and of the people. For the benefit of Hansard, he has been spread out across three seats. He is laid out as if this is something that is very boring for him to listen to. He has been lecturing us about democracy, but we will have none of it. This Government have no mandate for the vicious form of Brexit they are pursuing. It was never on the ballot paper. More than that, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said as recently as March:
“We did not vote to leave without a deal: that wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped to lead.”
Let us hear no more of this posturing that, somehow, those on the Government Benches are standing up for the people and that we are not. Those of us on the Opposition Benches, particularly those who have been arguing for a people’s vote from the very start, are precisely the ones who are standing up for the people and want their voices to be heard in this debate.
Time is short, and I want to make two more very quick points. The first is that, in all of this debate about process and procedure, we are in danger of forgetting what a no deal actually means for the people of this country. What it means, as we know from Operation Yellowhammer, is shortages of food and fuel. It means people unable to get their life-saving medicines. It also means a nightmare for people in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who has made that case so many times. How dare we, in this Chamber, think that we are going to rip up the Good Friday agreement and that it is nothing to be concerned about. There is everything to be concerned about in that.
I also want to say a word about the 3 million—the people who have made their lives here in this country expecting that their contribution would be valued, instead of which they are now in an intolerable limbo, not knowing whether their rights will be upheld.
Finally, I want to make a point that I think is important, but that some may feel is boring. One of the many reasons why we are in this crisis is that we do not have a codified written constitution. It is only the unwritten, uncodified understandings that protect the body politic from regressing to government with minimal checks, balances and accountability. Up to now we have had to depend on people playing by the rules. Well, now we have a Government who are not playing by the rules. We now need more than ever a written constitution drawn up by a democratic citizens’ convention that will put people at the heart of our politics for the first time in UK history.

Bob Seely: The crux of the debate tonight is whether we seek to bind and obstruct our Government in a critical period, as they seek options between the current withdrawal deal, which has been rejected three times by lots of people in this House, and  no deal, which is actually a series of mini deals. I am sure that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) have been engaged in negotiations at a far more senior level than I, but I do find it a little bizarre that we could seek to bind the hands of our Government at this point if those right hon. Gentlemen trust the people in power, and I have to say that I do.
I was engaged a bit in some of the negotiations with tribal Afghan leaders. I also conducted village negotiations in the Basra marshes in 2008 and 2009. Showing the limits of our negotiating power and showing what we were willing or not willing to do would have fatally undermined some of the conversations that happened to try to protect British troops and to try to stop ourselves being attacked. Therefore, binding the hands of the Government as they seek to negotiate a better deal is counterproductive, although I understand the concerns. The reason why this debate is so bad tempered is that it has gone on for three years. We hear tedious clichés, such as “a blind Brexit”, “a Tory Brexit” and “I’m not here to stop Brexit, but…”. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that many people on the Opposition Benches were using this no-deal Brexit motion simply as another means to stop Brexit.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) quoted Thomas More. I have been in this House for two years, and I feel like quoting Macbeth:
“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day”.
That is how I feel, because all we talk about is Brexit. I want us to get on and talk about lots of other things that are important to us. In fact—if Members do not mind me mixing my cultural references—it feels like groundhog day.
Pro-EU campaigners are concerned about protecting the rights of Parliament. I find that slightly ironic coming from people who want to stay in the European Union, which would do far more damage to the rights of Parliament than this Government ever would.
I want a deal, but I accept that the most important thing is to deliver, in order to have trust in politics. I am also aware that neither side is perfect, and that there are people now sitting on the Government Front Bench who could have voted for a deal but did not, just as there are people on the Opposition Benches who could have voted for a deal but did not. But we need to deliver on a deal. The reason I am against the motion is that it would provide another extension, and then we would simply continue in a debate that would become endless and tedious. We need to bring this to an end so that we can deliver on our manifesto commitments in other areas to the British people.

Tom Brake: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I am sure that it would be possible to provide the Leader of the House with a pillow to make him more comfortable, as he seems to be struggling during the debate.
I rise to support the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). We have a simple objective: to block no deal and secure a resolution to the crisis and  chaos that the country faces. A series of Government reports have set out the consequences of no deal, the most recent of which is on Operation Yellowhammer. It refers to medicine, fuel and food shortages, and increased risks on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The Government have been so shocked and embarrassed that they have attempted to sanitise the report—in fact, they have tried to make it disappear. However, it is in the interests of all our constituents—apart, of course, from those who are busy shorting the pound—to block no deal. We are not talking, as Ministers do, about bumps in the road; we are talking about job losses and business closures.
The Government claim that taking no deal off the table would damage our prospects of securing a deal. The first problem I have with that argument is that walking away without a deal is not like walking out of the car showroom without a car; in a no-deal scenario, we will be forced to leave with the banger with bald tyres and a chipped windscreen. The second problem, as set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, is that no deal will damage us far more than it will our EU friends. With no deal, the EU will get a headache, but we will get severe angina.
The final problem is that there is no evidence that the Government are seeking a deal. The EU-UK website lists three documents since June that touch on the issue. There have been a couple of calls between our Prime Minister and Jean-Claude Juncker. There has been our chief negotiator, David Frost, going to Brussels, but he has said that under no circumstances would he even allow a technical extension to article 50, which of course we all know would be required if the Government were in fact to secure a deal. I have asked colleagues in the European Parliament, and we have asked Guy Verhofstadt, whether there is any evidence whatsoever that the Government are seeking a deal, and the answer is that there is total radio silence from the UK Government on deal negotiations. Of course, the charming Dominic Cummings—the man who has staff escorted off the premises by armed police officers—let the cat out of the bag when he said that the negotiations are a “sham”.
In conclusion, tonight we must act, first, to stop a calamitous, jobs-destroying, influence-sapping no-deal Brexit; secondly, to force the Government to find a way out of a paralysis that is destroying our country’s credibility, tearing communities apart and stopping the Government dealing with the real problems we face as a nation; thirdly, to allow the people to express their views on the appropriateness of a no-deal Brexit; and finally, to demonstrate that the UK Parliament will resist the shutdown of our democracy and the authoritarian power grab of a rogue minority Government.

Andrew Bowie: It has been quite a long time since I have had the opportunity to speak in the Chamber. Well, I have spoken—as I am sure you will attest, Mr Speaker—but mainly from a sedentary position. The reason, of course, is that for the vast majority of the past year, I had the privilege of serving the former Prime Minister as her Parliamentary Private Secretary, meaning that for the majority of the past 259 days, I have lived and breathed  Brexit: deal, no deal, indicative votes, Cooper-Letwin, Boles, the withdrawal agreement, the negotiations, the renegotiations and all the attempts by the former Prime Minister, along with a group of utterly brilliant and dedicated colleagues, Ministers, civil servants and special advisers to ensure that this country left the EU with a deal. I did so not just because it was my job, but because I genuinely, completely and utterly believed that for my constituents, for this country, for our Union, for its businesses and for our economy, it was the only rational and sensible thing to do, and I still do. But I do not support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and I cannot vote for it this evening.
In my opinion, if we MPs—from all parts of this House—truly want to act in the national interest, as I know most of us do, we must support the Prime Minister and this Government in their efforts to renegotiate the deal and leave the European Union on 31 October. To be able to do that, the EU must know that we are serious about leaving, and that means keeping no deal on the table. If we support the motion before us tonight, we will know—the world will know—that we are not serious at all, and where then is the motivation and impetus to get this done?
To those on the Opposition Benches who claim that they would do anything to stop no deal, I ask this simple question: why didn’t you? When the question was brought before the House three times, why didn’t you? It is no good protesting that the deal was not good enough, that there were no guarantees or that, “If only we had known what was going to be in the withdrawal agreement Bill, we would have voted for it.” If those Members were genuinely serious about doing anything to stop no deal, they would have voted for a deal, so I ask them to stop pulling the wool over the eyes of the public and to be honest with voters.
To my friends and colleagues on the Government Benches, for whom I have so much respect and for whose support for the former Prime Minister over the last year I am personally very grateful, I say this: please do not undermine this Prime Minister as so often this House of Commons undermined the last; please give our negotiators the support they need to get the changes to the deal that we need; and please do not allow to be taken off the table the one thing that is pushing both sides towards achieving just that.

Steven Baker: I fondly remember being in the room with my hon. Friend on a number of occasions, and I very much look forward to his memoirs on all these subjects.

Andrew Bowie: I will give my hon. Friend a signed copy when I get around to writing them. I know that many of my friends will be voting against the Government and against their party tonight.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Bowie: I will not give way; there is far too little time.
For many Members, this will be the first time they have ever voted against this party, after decades of loyal service to it. I know that many have wrestled with their consciences as I have wrestled with mine, and I hear their arguments. This is not an easy decision for anybody, but I will be supporting my Prime Minister this evening. We need to get this deal renegotiated. We need to get this done. We need to leave the EU. Then we can at long last move the country forward.

John Baron: I rise in opposition to this motion and in support of my Prime Minister, essentially for two reasons. The first is that there is more than a whiff of arrogance in this motion. Too many remain MPs in this place will use any device to try to block Brexit. There are honourable remain Members, but I am afraid that there are too many who are not. The decision was delegated by this place to the people, and they made their decision very clearly. We have been kicking this can down the road for three years and to many outside this Westminster bubble, enough is enough. I remind the House that the majority of Members who are going to support the motion voted in favour of triggering article 50, which said, very simply, that we would be leaving the EU with or without a deal. We have twice extended that time line, and that is why people outside this place are getting very frustrated with many colleagues here tonight.
Apart from the arrogance, this decision is ill-informed. It will make a bad deal more likely. Anyone who has negotiated in business or with any organisations will know that if the other side believes that one is not prepared to walk away, it will make for a worse deal—it is a simple fact of life. Most of us in this place prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but the guaranteed way of getting a bad deal is to take no deal off the table. Business people in this House, and many who have negotiated deals, will understand that.
This decision is also ill-informed from an economic point of view. No deal has been derided without examining a lot of the economic facts. Time does not allow here and now for those points to be made—[Interruption]—and too many people are talking anyway, so they would not hear them. I would merely suggest that people reflect on the fact that half of the EU’s top 10 trading partners trade on WTO no-deal terms with parties outside the EU—it is a simple fact of life.

Jamie Stone: I sincerely hope that I am not seen to be an arrogant Member of this House. I always try to represent the interests of the far north of Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman, and others in the Chamber, at least accept that a no-deal Brexit would ruin the crofters and sheep farmers in my constituency, and that would lead to the second highland clearances?

John Baron: If there is no deal—most of us in this place want a good trade deal—there would be tens of billions of pounds to help those sectors of the economy and industry to readjust, as we have seen in previous economic cycles. It is a fact of life.
Too many people, not just in this place but outside, ignore the fact that investment and jobs are about comparative advantage. It is about how competitive our tax rates are and how flexible our labour markets are, and what our financial expertise is like—we have London  and we have Edinburgh. What about our R&D and top universities? In aggregate, those are more important than WTO tariffs of 3% to 5%.
If proof of the pudding were required, with all the talk in the past few years about no deal being better than a bad deal, industry has been fully aware that no deal has been a distinct possibility and what have we seen economically? We have seen record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment. This country attracted more inward investment last year than France and Germany put together. It comes down to economic reality. I am afraid that some Members of the House, in coming to their decision tonight, have not considered the economic facts.

Bob Neill: I have been a member of my party for 50 years, and throughout that time, I have believed in our membership of the European Union. I campaigned for that in the referendum. My constituency voted to remain in the European Union, albeit by the very narrowest of margins, but my side lost and I accept therefore that we need to leave the European Union. I want to leave with a deal. People in my constituency and businesses—those who work hard to build wealth in this country—are genuinely concerned about the impacts of leaving without a deal. Their concerns are not illegitimate: they are real, and they need to be addressed. Equally, they have real and genuine concerns about prolonged uncertainty, and we as politicians need to weigh heavily the damage perhaps done reputationally to our body politic.
These are not easy matters. We have had a great many statements of bold certainty in this debate and too many other things—perhaps too much hyperbole and not enough pragmatism. My conclusion, to try to reconcile that narrow margin in my constituency and those conflicting but genuine concerns of my constituents, has been to vote three times to leave with a deal. I wish others had done so as well.
If I believed that passing this motion today would make it easier for us to achieve a deal, I would support it, but I do not believe that it does. You will know, Mr Speaker, that I have not been afraid to defy the Whip of my party in the past when I thought it right and proper to do so. But after real heart searching and thought, I have concluded that it would not have that effect, and that it might, regrettably, have the contrary effect, of reducing the Government’s leverage in negotiations. If we are to get a deal, the only point that we will realistically do that now is at the Council on 17 and 18 October. I do not wish to bind the hands of the Government in the run-up to that.
It may be a narrowing window of opportunity to get a deal. We may not succeed, but for the sake of my constituents, and to reflect that narrow margin in my constituency and in the country and try to find a means of us moving on together, I believe that we should try to seize that opportunity. I do not impugn for one second the motives or the integrity of those who have proposed this motion—many of them are among my dearest and best friends in this House—but I believe it would be mistaken to support it. For that reason, I will support the Government. I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to think again before we cross the Rubicon. For 50 years, many of us have worked together. I hope we can continue  to do so in the future, and I hope that they will reflect one last time before taking the step of voting against the Government tonight.

Chris Philp: For three long years, we have talked about, debated and voted repeatedly on Brexit in this House, and yet here we stand after three years not having reached any firm resolution. In supporting the motion before the House this evening, we would simply prolong even further the uncertainty that our country and our businesses are experiencing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) described in his excellent speech. We have a responsibility, having been elected in 2017 on manifestos to respect the referendum result, to do so, to stop prevaricating, to stop kicking the can down the road and, one way or another, to reach a definitive conclusion. The motion before the House does not do that. It simply prevaricates even further.
Some Opposition Members have been very clear about what they want, and I respect that. My neighbour, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have both been clear previously and this evening that they would rather remain in the European Union and that they certainly do not want a no-deal exit. I disagree with that view, but at least they have clarity in expressing it. They also say that they do not want to leave with no deal, but those who adopt that view have only two choices: either to accept any deal that is offered up, no matter how bad, or to remain, and I do not think either of those options is acceptable. Remaining, when the country voted to leave and the main two parties were elected on manifestos to leave, is wholly unacceptable. There is only one sensible option, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst eloquently pointed out—

Nick Brown: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly.
The House proceeded to a Division.

John Bercow: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 328, Noes 301.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That this House has considered the matter of the need to take all necessary steps to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and accordingly makes provision as set out in this order:
(1) On Wednesday 4 September 2019
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this order and call a Member to present the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Wednesday 4 September 2019
(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Wednesday 4 September 2019 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00 pm.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Wednesday 4 September 2019
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (16) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords on any future sitting day, the House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (10) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order), any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) If such a message is received on or before the commencement of public business on Monday 9 September and a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message, that message shall be considered before any order of the day or notice of motion which stands on the Order Paper.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted –
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) in paragraph (5), the words “subject to paragraphs (6) and (7)” were omitted.
Reasons Committee
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Miscellaneous
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(15) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(16) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(18) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this order apply.
Motion under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019
(19) No motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown under section 3(2)(b) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 prior to Monday 9 September.
Royal Assent
(20) At the sittings on Monday 9 September, Tuesday 10 September and Wednesday 11 September, the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.
Proceedings in next Session of Parliament
(21) The provisions of paragraphs (22) and (23) of this order apply to and in connection with proceedings on a Bill in the next Session of the present Parliament if—
(a) the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill has been read the third time in the present Session of Parliament but has not received the Royal Assent;
(b) the Speaker is satisfied that the Bill is in similar terms to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill in the present Session of Parliament;
(c) notice of presentation of the Bill is to be given by a designated Member.
(22) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, Standing Order No. 14(11) (which relates to precedence in respect of private Members’ Bills) shall not apply in respect of the Bill in the new Session and notice of presentation of that Bill may be given on the first day of the new Session accordingly.
(23) Where the conditions in paragraph (21) are met, the provisions of paragraphs (1), (3) to (9) and (11) to (18) shall apply to proceedings on and in connection with the Bill in the new Session as they apply to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill and any reference in this order to Wednesday 4 September shall apply as if it were a reference to the second day of the new Session.
Interpretation, etc
(24) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the Member in charge of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament; and
(b) any other Member backing the Bill in the present Session of Parliament and acting on behalf of that Member.
(25) This order shall be a Standing Order of the House.

POINTS OF ORDER

Boris Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let there be no doubt about the consequences of this vote tonight. It means that Parliament is on the brink of wrecking any deal that we might be able to strike with Brussels, because tomorrow’s Bill would hand control of the negotiations to the EU. That would mean more dither, more delay and more confusion, and it would mean that the EU itself would be able to decide how long to keep this country in the EU.
Since I refuse to go along with that plan, we are going to have to make a choice. I do not want an election. The public do not want an election. I do not believe the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) wants an election. But if the House votes for the Bill tomorrow, the public will have to choose who goes to Brussels on 17 October to sort this out and take this country forward. Everybody knows that, if the right hon. Gentleman is the Prime Minister, he will go to Brussels and beg for an extension, he will accept whatever Brussels demands, and we will have years more arguments over Brexit. By contrast, everyone knows that, if this Government are in charge and I go to Brussels, I will go for a deal and I believe I will get a deal, and we will leave anyway—even if we do not, we will leave anyway on 31 October.
The people of this country will have to choose. The Leader of the Opposition has been begging for an election for two years. He has crowds of supporters outside calling for an election. I do not want an election, but if MPs vote tomorrow to stop negotiations and to compel another pointless delay to Brexit, potentially for years, that would be the only way to resolve this, and I can confirm that we are tonight tabling a motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome tonight’s vote. We live in a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidency; we have a Prime Minister. Prime Ministers govern with the consent of the House of Commons representing the people in whom sovereignty rests. There is no consent in this House to leave the EU without a deal. There is no majority for no deal in the country. As I have said before, if the Prime Minister has confidence in his Brexit policy—when he has one he can put forward—he should put it before the people in a public vote. So he wants to table a motion for a general election. Fine—get the Bill through first in order to take no deal off the table. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. It is very rude for Members—[Interruption.] Order. I say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, when he turns up at our children’s school as a parent, he is a very well-behaved fellow. He would not dare to behave like that in front of Colin Hall, and neither would I. Do not gesticulate. Do not rant. Spare us the theatrics. Behave yourself. Be a good boy, young man. Be a good boy. [Interruption.] Yes, we know the theatrics that the right hon. Gentleman perfected in the Oxford Union. We are not interested. Be quiet.

Ian Blackford: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that the public will be watching these deliberations tonight, and what they will make of the baying and shouting that is coming from the Conservative side, heaven only knows.
This Prime Minister has a 100% record of losing votes in the House of Commons, and one would have thought that he would have some humility tonight, but that is sadly lacking. Prime Minister, perhaps you might consider acting as a Prime Minister should. Respect the vote that has taken place in the House tonight. Let us have a Bill tomorrow. The House will be able to express its opinion that it wishes to remove no deal as an option. Do not give us this nonsense of a fantasy that there is a deal to come from the Government, because it is simply not true.
The Government must respect the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. They must allow the Bill to be enacted—they must allow it to have Royal Assent—and yes, let us have an election, but let us have an election that respects the democracy of this House, and the desire of parliamentarians to ensure that we do not crash out on a no-deal basis.

Jo Swinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Across the country, people have been protesting because they are worried. They are worried about the Prime Minister’s riding roughshod over our parliamentary democracy. Tonight the House of Commons has spoken: it has said that we will not let that happen.
Much as I relish the opportunity to take on the Prime Minister in a general election, it is vital—[Interruption.] It is vital that this House acts with responsibility, and does not take our country into an election at a point at which there is any risk that we will crash out of the European Union during that election campaign or immediately afterwards. We must act responsibly.

Anna Soubry: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I am not going to be shouted down, especially by any man.
Mr Speaker, tonight’s vote made even the Leader of the House sit up. This Parliament has spoken, and we have spoken on behalf of the jobs, livelihoods and futures of our constituents. Yet again, we have shown   that we do not want a no-deal Brexit, and tomorrow we shall have the opportunity to make sure, yet again, that we do not crash out without a deal.
I remind the Prime Minister that, as one of the so-called leaders of the Leave campaign, he promised the people of this country that we would not leave the European Union without a deal. I think that this House now has the right to know the following. The rumour is that the whip will be withdrawn from every single member of the Conservative party who voted against their Government tonight. If that is the case, Mr Speaker, it must be the first time, and it would involve right hon. and hon. Members who have served their party—and, many would say, their country—for decades. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether they will have the whip withdrawn—yes or no?

John Bercow: Order. I do not think we need to conduct a debate on that matter across the Floor of the House—it is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair—but the right hon. Lady has made her own point in her own way, with her customary force. It is on the record, and she will doubtless wish to return to it in times to come.

CENSUS (RETURN PARTICULARS AND REMOVAL OF PENALTIES) BILL [LORDS]

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

ELECTION OF SELECT COMMITTEE CHAIRS (NOTICE OF ELECTION)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 122C(1), the Speaker may announce a date for an election of chairs of select committees before 12 September 2019 in respect of which the requirement of notice is not met.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.

John Bercow: I must inform the House that Nicky Morgan has given me notice of her resignation as Chair of the Treasury Committee. I declare the Chair vacant. Nominations should be submitted by 12 noon on Tuesday 10 September. Only members of the Conservative party may be candidates in this Select Committee Chair election. The ballot will take place on Wednesday 11 September from 10 am to 1.30 pm.

Sheep Farming: No-deal EU Exit

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Quin.)

Jenny Chapman: When I was first elected to this place in 2010, I never thought I would find myself standing up to challenge the Government about the decimation of the UK’s sheep industry. The ancient practice of shepherding is as old as the hills, but it is now facing an unprecedented challenge brought by the threat of a no-deal Brexit. The threat of no deal brings with it a man-made, Boris-built disaster that could harm so many sectors from chemicals to cars, food to pharmaceuticals, and steel to services—virtually every area of economic activity in this country would be hit, and that includes the sheep industry. The idea that the rearing of lambs could be so comprehensively, cruelly and deliberately threatened by our own Government’s decision is beyond belief.
Keeping sheep is already a vulnerable business and a no-deal Brexit will just add to the problems. The unprecedented loss of markets and the imposition of tariffs and barriers will severely harm this industry.

Susan Elan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another example of privileged, idle old Etonians who could not care less about the lives and livelihoods of our working hill farmers in Wales and across the UK?

Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I represent an urban constituency, but even in urban Darlington there are agricultural workers whose jobs would be affected by the effect of a no-deal Brexit on the sheep industry.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House for consideration. I spoke to her earlier today and perhaps her opinion on Brexit is very different from mine, but the Conservative Government have indicated that as long as they have the power to do so, they will maintain the grants that are available for farmers, and for sheep farmers in particular. Does she agree that the problems and the deficits there might be in lamb prices could be offset by the Government’s commitment to give what the EU gives now?

Jenny Chapman: If it was that simple, we would not need to have this debate. This is not just about farm payments; it is about loss of markets. That is something that has not been properly understood, and the Government have not given a decent account of what they intend to do to address it.

Brendan O'Hara: The hon. Lady will know that Scotland is home to one fifth of the entire UK sheep flock, and that much of that work is being done by farmers and crofters in less favoured areas such as my own constituency. Leaving the European Union with no deal would have a devastating effect on farmers and crofters, so will she join me in urging the Government to listen to the words of Andrew McCornick of the Scottish National Farmers Union, who has said  unequivocally that a no deal must be avoided because our farmers need security and fair access to European markets?

Jenny Chapman: I agree with that. One of the specific problems faced by the farmers the hon. Gentleman describes is the fact that those flocks possess unique characteristics, and that once they are gone they may never be able to be bred back into our national flock.

Wayne David: Is not the heart of the problem the fact that lamb would not be competitive if it had a 48% tariff placed on it? That would be an absolutely ridiculous situation. The Government might talk about short-term subsidies to help the immediate situation, but that is no way to save the industry as a whole.

Jenny Chapman: That is absolutely right.

Sarah Wollaston: This will certainly devastate the hill farmers in my constituency, but we must also consider the impact that it would have on the landscape. Many people do not realise that our landscapes are the way they are because of grazing.

Jenny Chapman: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and that is why even my constituents in urban Darlington care about what happens to our national flock and to the livelihoods of the tens of thousands of people who work so hard to keep our landscape the way that it is.

Deidre Brock: I wonder whether the hon. Lady was as disturbed as I was to hear the Leader of the House speak so casually earlier this evening of trading purely under WTO rules, given that analysis from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board suggests that WTO tariffs could add anything from 38% to 91% to the price of sheepmeat for EU buyers, which would be catastrophic for the sector.

Jenny Chapman: I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will refer later in my speech to the report that she has mentioned.

Helen Goodman: Last week, I went to the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Service. Its concern is that because the Government have failed to bring forward the Agriculture Bill, it is not clear whether the Government have the legal powers to make payments in the event of no-deal Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must answer that point this evening?

Jenny Chapman: That is the first time I have heard that point made in the House; it is one that my hon. Friend and I discussed earlier today. She is absolutely right: farmers need to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about their payments, and we need to ensure that he has the power to make those payments. The principal problem for the sheep sector is that, according to the report the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) mentioned, under no deal the export of sheepmeat to the EU 27 would be almost entirely wiped out, with the only exports being  those via a tariff rate quota of less than 400 tonnes. Of course non-EU exports could increase over time, although the possible rise of around 5% would not be anywhere near enough to offset the loss of EU trade. Reduced trade with the EU would leave around one third of UK meat without a market.

Ruth Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend. She is absolutely correct to raise concerns about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the sheep industry in Britain, and nowhere will that impact be felt more than in Wales. In acknowledging the work that the NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales do on behalf of Welsh farmers, may I point out that 96% of all the Welsh lamb sent out of the UK goes to the 27 other nations in the EU? If we do not get this right, sheep farmers in Wales will be pushed to breaking point, and we cannot allow that.

Jenny Chapman: This affects every region of the country, from the Lakeland fells, to Exmoor, to Teesdale, where I live. People are saying, “Why does this matter? Surely this just means that there will be more lamb for the UK market, the price will be cut, and we can all enjoy more lamb this Christmas”, but the problem is that we just do not have the facilities to safely slaughter, store and freeze that volume of lamb in the UK. If the Minister plans to introduce such facilities, he needs to say so tonight, because knowing that this year’s yield of around 15 million lambs can be safely stored and enjoyed by consumers, and therefore paid for, would be of huge benefit to the 34,000 people currently employed in the industry. If that meat cannot be stored and sold—even at a knock-down price—the sector will be decimated.
The Government have said that they are aware of the special circumstances that would lead to a substantial negative effect on the income of UK sheep farmers, and that they would compensate farmers. To their credit, the Government have pledged to continue to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of this Parliament—although obviously that might be coming sooner than was anticipated. Financial support is already included in farmers’ business plans, but it does not compensate farmers for a sudden loss of market or for feed costs for animals that they cannot now slaughter. It does not ensure that sufficient feed is available to keep lambs bred for slaughter alive. It does not create abattoir or cold-storage capacity. It certainly does not create new export markets or offset tariffs, because that would be against WTO rules.
In answer to one of my written parliamentary questions on 18 July, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:
“We are doing all we can to mitigate the challenges our farmers will face and we have contingency plans in place to minimise disruption.”
But Ministers have not explained, and continue to refuse to explain, what those contingency plans are. The Minister’s predecessor offered from the Dispatch Box to meet me, but the current Minister then declined that invitation and has refused to discuss the issue. If a wasteful cull of millions of lambs and breeding ewes is to be avoided, measures need to be put in place now. If the slaughter and storage facilities are not in place and no deal happens, farmers will have little option but to cull their flocks. The meat will not be eaten, and the waste will be shameful.
The lack of new trading arrangements and an implementation period would mean that farmers will set about drastically reducing the size of their flocks. Chillingly, the AHDB says:
“Culling rates would record significant uplift driving the increase in adult sheep slaughterings. Quarter one of year two”—
of a no-deal Brexit—
“records a year-on-year uplift in slaughterings as the remainder of the year-one lamb crop are slaughtered.”
The estimate of 3 million lambs is at the lower end of the estimates.

Matt Western: My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Perhaps she can enlighten us or confirm this, but my understanding is that the breeding season is probably just about to start, because sheep gestation is typically around 150 days, if I well recall, so farmers must be planning now exactly what their programmes will be.

Jenny Chapman: That is exactly right. I think the phrase is “In with a bang and out like fools,” because sheep breed at the end of October or the beginning of November, and the lambs arrive in the spring. As the Minister well knows, farmers make their arrangements and plan such things a long way in advance, which is why, according to farming bodies, we need at least a two to three-year transitional period. The AHDB report I was referring to goes on to say that
“under a rapid response scenario, the national flock would be culled to reduce size”.

Kerry McCarthy: Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment that the Welsh Secretary said over the summer that we could start exporting to Japan and that that market has opened up? They do not eat lamb in Japan at the moment, and they are certainly not going to start eating it on 1 November just to oblige us.

Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Yes, in theory and given enough time, it may be possible to find new markets, but it will be too late by then, because our flock will have been decimated and will take decades to rebuild. Should the situation improve in future years, with new markets, it might just be possible to re-establish the flock, but it really is not likely. Once the breeding ewes have gone and their special characteristics have been lost, it will take years to recreate the unique features of our national flock. Tens of thousands of jobs and our treasured landscape would be lost, and this is all so preventable.
A minimum of a two to three-year transitional deal is needed, and we need agreements that recognise the safety and quality of our produce. Critically, we must increase the capacity of essential cold storage facilities now. When Ministers reassure me and try to reassure farmers, they need to explain what precisely they intend to do.

Tonia Antoniazzi: This is an important debate, particularly for my Gower constituency, where the lamb industry is very vibrant. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the amount of cold storage that will be needed and about the Government’s plans to meet that need? Does this country have enough cold storage for medicines post-Brexit?

Jenny Chapman: If any of us were in the business of cold storage or large-scale fridges, we would be doing quite well at the moment. My understanding from the trade body that represents such businesses is that there is no additional capacity, so should we suddenly need to store this volume of meat, those facilities will not be there and the safe consumption of that meat will not be a possible solution to this issue.
I did not believe it when I first heard about the mass culling of millions of lambs that would be rendered inedible, but then I read the reports, listened to the National Farmers Union and spoke to agricultural workers and farmers across the country. It is very clear that this is not “Project Fear”.
I ask the Minister to get out from behind his ministerial desk and deal with this now, before it is too late.

George Eustice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on securing this important debate on a day when we have already had a lot of discussion about our EU exit. She has raised this issue in a series of parliamentary questions, and a little later I will address some of the concerns and issues she raises.
The UK sheep sector is incredibly large and important. Combined, our upland and lowland sheep production had an annual production value of around £1.26 billion in 2018, accounting for around 4.5% of all agriculture output in the UK. As a number of hon. Members have said, the sector is also responsible for some of the most iconic landscapes in the UK.
There are 16 million breeding ewes and some 70,000 sheep farms across the UK, and the sector is particularly important in some of the devolved regions. For instance, around 50% of UK sheep production and the national flock is in Wales and Scotland. The UK is the largest producer of sheepmeat in the EU, producing around 38% of all the sheepmeat and goatmeat produced in the EU last year. The UK is also the world’s third largest exporter of sheepmeat, behind New Zealand and Australia, so we are a truly global player in this sector.
Around a third of our annual production of lamb is exported and, as the hon. Member for Darlington said, over 95% of it goes to the European Union. Total lamb exports in 2018 were valued at around £384 million, with a large amount of that coming from the European Union. The main export destination for lamb in 2018 was France, followed by Germany and Belgium, but for certain parts of the industry, notably those in Wales that tend to produce smaller lambs, some of the Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Portugal are also important purchasers of our goods. Some of our heavier lamb, predominantly from lowland areas, is more sought after in northern Europe. We recognise that, because of all those factors, in the event of a no-deal exit the sheep sector is the most exposed in its trading relationship with the EU, and we have always acknowledged that.
In managing those risks, we have two important factors going for us. First, we have a large domestic market for food in general and for lamb in particular. Measured by import value, the UK is the world’s third largest market for food and drink, coming after only  China and Japan. That means there are many opportunities for import substitution, as we currently source a significant quantity of lamb from New Zealand.
Secondly, we have an independent exchange rate—an independent currency and a floating exchange rate. That is incredibly important for the agriculture sector. It helps as an automatic stabiliser when we have shocks. We now contemplate the prospect of having to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, although that is not our preference, as all hon. Members know. Having a floating exchange rate makes that easier for the farming sector than it would have been had we become trapped in the euro some years ago.

Helen Goodman: I am astounded by what the Minister has just said. The pound has fallen by 20% since the referendum, which means that for every export the farmers are getting 20% less money. How can that be good for them?

George Eustice: The hon. Lady has it the wrong way round, as it is always the case that for sectors that are producing goods, such as agriculture, a weaker exchange rate against the euro leads to higher prices. It is no secret that since the referendum result in 2016, when there was an adjustment of sterling against the euro, agriculture commodity prices in the UK have been at highs, and that has helped farm incomes. That is a recognised fact; exchange rates are a key driver of agriculture commodity prices.
We recognise that even with those important factors going in our favour, the sector is still exposed. Some modelling has been done by a number of different organisations, including the NFU. It is important to recognise that tariffs are a tax on consumers first and foremost. Some estimates therefore anticipate that were the EU to apply full most favoured nation tariffs on lamb, there would likely be an increase in consumer prices in the EU of up to about 20%. That reflects the fact that the UK is the dominant lamb producer in the EU and there are limited other options for it to source its lamb from.

Gareth Snell: The Minister mentions choosing to apply MFN tariffs. I profess not to be an expert on the sheep industry, but in the ceramics industry we have been told that there is no choice over MFN and it is the tariff that has to be applied to abide by World Trade Organisation rules. Is the Minister now saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government can apply discretion on that? If so, will he outline what that plan is?

George Eustice: Yes, absolutely, there is discretion, and the UK Government have already indicated what their tariff schedule would be in a no-deal scenario. Governments have the opportunity to have a lower applied tariff—lower than the bound tariff set in the WTO. The option is also open to any Government unilaterally to suspend tariffs. Indeed, should it wish, tariff suspension would be open to the EU, which I think is unlikely. Alternatively, and more likely, is the creation of an autonomous tariff rate quota for lamb that would be open to the whole world, including the UK. There are many options that both the EU and the British Government have unilaterally to apply tariffs that are lower than the WTO bound tariff.
However, as I said, it is important to recognise that we are the dominant producer. The EU could source more product from New Zealand, provided it had access to the ceiling currently set under the EU tariff rate quota. In the medium term, countries such as Spain could increase their production, but they are unlikely to be able to do that in the short term. For those reasons, it is likely that there would be an increase in consumer prices in the European Union as a result of its applying the full MFN tariff.
It is important to recognise that that increase in price would dampen demand in the European Union. Modelling suggests that that would increase supply in the domestic market and that as a result prices in the UK could fall by up to 30%. To put that into context, that means prices going back down to roughly where they were in 2015, which was a difficult year for the sheep sector. We are talking about a significant potential reduction, but it is not unprecedented. It would simply be going back to levels prior to the referendum result.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Welsh Affairs Committee recently went to New Zealand and visited the sheep and beef industry, which was very interesting. Our farmers worry that our markets are going to be flooded with cheap New Zealand lamb. What can the Minister say to allay our farmers’ fears?

George Eustice: The Government have already made it clear that because of the particular sensitivity, we will apply full MFN tariffs on lamb, so there will not be any additional imports to the UK beyond those we already have. There is a splitting of the existing TRQ for New Zealand lamb between the UK and New Zealand—a combined total of around 250,000 tonnes—but there will be no additional lamb because we will apply full MFN tariffs outside that TRQ.

Tonia Antoniazzi: How is the tariff going to work between Europe and the UK? Has it been decided what percentage of the tariff is going to go to the UK or to Europe?

George Eustice: Yes, that has been decided. One of the few areas in which the European Union has from the very beginning being willing to work with the UK is on agreeing a splitting of the tariff rate quota schedules, and those have already been lodged with the World Trade Organisation.
As I said, we recognise that in a no-deal scenario we will have to show some solidarity with the sector, which will nevertheless face potentially significant falls in prices to levels not seen since 2015.

Douglas Ross: I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. He is giving a strong account for this important sector. On my summer surgery tour, farmers from Tomintoul to Rothiemay expressed their concerns about the future of the industry. What reassurance can the Minister give, on behalf of the Government, that this issue is being given the utmost priority? What can he say tonight to reassure sheep farmers in Moray, across Scotland and throughout the UK?

George Eustice: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. He will be aware that the Government are seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union in the medium to long term and, if we can get it,  in the short term. In the short term, the Prime Minister has already made it clear that in the event of a no-deal exit we will show solidarity with the sheep industry and make interventions, where necessary, to support farmers’ incomes.

Jenny Chapman: rose—

George Eustice: I am going to conclude because we are running out of time.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised the important issue of whether we have the legal vires to make those interventions, and I can confirm that we do. The Government have a number of legislative vehicles with which to do so, including elements of retained EU law, and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 also includes general grant-making powers that give us the ability to do so. We are considering two possible options. One is a headage payment on breeding ewes, should that be necessary. That would be important in the event that farmers producing lambs are the ones who have the shock to their income. The second option would be something called a slaughterhouse premium, which would in effect involve a supplementary top-up payment for lambs at the point of slaughter. We could use a combination of those options but, broadly speaking, a headage payment and income-support approach would be the right approach to adopt.

Matt Western: rose—

George Eustice: I want to conclude now as we are running out of time.
The scale of, or need for, any intervention is difficult to judge at this point, because it will depend quite considerably on the approach that the European Union finally takes. As I said earlier, it is open to it to create an autonomous tariff-rate quota, but it is also highly dependent on the extent of exchange rates. I can give hon. Members an undertaking tonight to reassure them that the Rural Payments Agency has already been told to design the administrative procedures necessary to make such headage payments. Discussions with the Treasury are at an advanced stage about what support may need to be set aside, while recognising that no final decisions can be taken until we actually leave the European Union.
I know that the hon. Member for Darlington has previously raised the issue of culling sheep, and she raised it again tonight. I can confirm that that is not under consideration. We regard any problems as being potentially short term and the correct approach would be to supplement farmers’ incomes through the headage payment schemes that I have described. We do not want to reduce the capacity of our flock.
We are a global player in this sector and we believe that there is a bright future for our sheep sector. However, in the unlikely event that it is not possible to get a longer-term free trade agreement with the European Union, there are, of course, other approaches that we can take. Our existing tariff-rate policy is set for just 12 months. It is open to us in future to review that and to apply certain tariffs to other EU sectors in order to give our farmers opportunities to diversify into different sectors such as beef. Many of our sheep producers are mixed beef and sheep enterprises. It is also open to us to support the opening of new markets through, for instance,  the deployment of new attachés to our embassy to help gain that market access. I know that the hon. Lady said that that was against WTO rules, but that is not correct. Certain types of export refunds are against WTO convention, but there is no rule against investment to support market access.
In conclusion, we recognise that the sheep sector more than any other agriculture sector is exposed because of the scale of its exports to the European Union, but   the Government have been working for the past two years on modelling the potential impacts and planning the types of interventions that we may need to make to ensure that our sheep farmers are protected from any no-deal exit.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.